Midterm Exam: Socio-Political Philosophy

Rev. Fr. Jonathan Capacio Tianero, MPhR, STL, DCM

1. What is the essence of Social Justice?

a. The essence of social justice is to demand from each individual all that is
necessary for the common good, and each individual is to receive from the
community those conditions, circumstances and opportunities necessary
for personal development.
2. What is the Principle of Subsidiarity?
a. The essential purpose of every social activity is to assist individual
members of the social body. Therefore, it is wrong for a stronger and
larger entity to arrogate to itself the functions that a smaller and weaker
one can do itself.
3. Write down the Introduction to the Preamble of the US Declaration of
Independence.
a. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
i. Governments exist to secure people's rights, deriving their just
powers from the consent of the governed.
ii. People have the right to alter or abolish a government if it
becomes destructive to their rights.
iii. Governments should not be changed for trivial reasons, as
history shows people tend to endure suffering rather than seek
change.
iv. When a government repeatedly abuses its power, reducing
people to absolute despotism, it is their right and duty to
overthrow it and establish a new one.
v. The American colonies have endured oppression from the
British monarchy, justifying their need for independence.
 vi. The King of Great Britain has engaged in repeated injustices,
proving his intent to establish tyranny over the colonies.
vii. Declaration to present facts to the world as justification for their
independence.
viii. And related to the phrase you mentioned:
ix. All men are created equal and have unalienable rights—
including Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
4. What are the two most important words that cannot be separated in a just
society? Explain.
- Creator and Creature.
- dle na sila magbulag para maangkon ang just society
- kung mawala ang usa sa ila maong chaotic na kaayu. kung mawala ang
notion sa creator, wala nay standard tanan, moral, beauty, truth. kung
mawala sab ang creature or creation, kinsa wala tay matawag nga creator.
ang creator man ang nagbuhat sa society , busa need nga dle walaon ang
notion sa creator para naay order and society. naay universal standard nga
sundon.
- The Declaration states that individuals are "endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights." This establishes that these rights are not granted by governments
or social contracts, but are inherent and God-given.
- The Creator-Creature relationship establishes the source of these rights. The idea that
all humans are creatures of the same Creator is the basis for their equality.
- Dignity and Worth:
o The belief that humans are created in God's image (as per Christian theology)
confers inherent dignity and worth upon every individual. This dignity is not
earned or dependent on social status, but is a fundamental aspect of being a
creature of God.
o This is the basis of why all humans are considered equal.
- Moral Responsibility:
o The Creator-Creature relationship also implies a moral responsibility on the
part of humans to treat each other with respect and compassion.
 o If all people are creatures of a loving creator, then all people are worthy of
that love.
o Limitations on Power:
o The concept of a Creator who is above human authority serves as a check on
the power of governments and other institutions. It reinforces the idea that
there are limits to human authority, and that individuals have rights that
cannot be violated.
o This relationship sets a standard of morality that human law should strive to
reflect.
o Therefore, while "Equality" and "Liberty" are crucial for the practical
application of justice in a society, the "Creator-Creature" relationship provides
the foundational moral and theological basis for those principles. It
establishes:
o Why humans are equal.
o Where their rights come from.
o The moral obligations that humans have towards one another.

4. Explain the “state of nature” of

a. Hobbes
"The condition of man... is a condition of war of everyone against
everyone."

According to Thomas Hobbes, the State of Nature is a hypothetical situation prior to the
establishment of society, where individuals are naturally and exclusively self-
interested.

Important points of Hobbes's State of Nature include:

 Self-interest: Individuals are primarily motivated by their own desires. In the

reading, it is stated that everything we do is motivated solely by the desire to
better our own situations and satisfy as many of our own, individually considered
desires as possible.
 Equality: People are more or less equal to one another, meaning that even the
strongest can be killed by another.
  Limited resources: There are not enough resources to satisfy everyone's desires.
 Absence of power or simply the absence of the LEVIATHAN: There is no
overarching authority to enforce cooperation.

Given the condition above, the state of nature would be or look like this: it is unbearably
brutal. Because, again, every person constantly fears losing their life to another, and
there's no capacity to ensure the long-term satisfaction of needs or desires.

Hobbes concludes that the State of Nature would be the worst possible situation in
which men can find themselves. It is the state of perpetual and unavoidable war.

However, this situation is not hopeless… Hobbes argues that humans can use reason to
recognize the laws of nature, which can lead them to escape the State of Nature by
constructing a social contract and creating a civil society.

By creating or constructing civil society, part of the state of nature or expected in the
state of nature is PEACE.

The social contract then constituted of two distinguishable contracts:

1. They will renounce the rights they had against each other in the state of nature (in a
war with each other) they have to create common laws.
2. They will imbue one person with the authority and power to enforce the initial
contract- thus, a SOVEREIGN. In other words, create an enforcement mechanism.

Final Remark: LAST NGA ATAKE:

- the Social Contract is the most fundamental source of all that is good and that which we
depend upon to live well. There are only two choices according to Hobbes wither to abide
by the terms of the contract or return to the state of nature, which Hobbes argues no
reasonable person could possibly prefer.

b. Rousseau

"Man was born free, and he is everywhere in chains."

Jean-Jacques Rousseau's concept of the State of Nature differs significantly from that of
Hobbes. According to Rousseau, the State of Nature is a peaceful and quixotic time
where people live solitary and uncomplicated lives, and their needs are easily met by
nature.

Key aspects of Rousseau's State of Nature include:

 Solitary and Simple Life: People live alone and without competition.
 Ease of Satisfying Needs: Nature abundantly provides for the few needs of
individuals.
  Absence of Competition: Due to the abundance of resources and small
population, there is no competition or conflict.
 Natural Pity: People are naturally endowed with pity and are disinclined to harm
one another.

However, as the population increased, people began to live in small families and
communities, leading to divisions of labour and the invention of private property.

The rise of leisure time inevitably led people to make comparisons between
themselves and others. In effect: shame, envy, pride, and contempt. Again, the private
property was invented.

Rousseau sees the invention of private property as a pivotal moment that leads
humanity out of the pure State of Nature and into a state of greed, competition, vanity,
inequality, and vice; this constitutes humanity's 'fall from grace'. Eventually, the
establishment of government through a contract arose.

- Private property was introduced. Some have property, and others are forced to work
for them, and the development of social classes begins.
- Here is the thing: those who have private property from those who do not have it, but
can see that they might be able to acquire it by force…
o Therefore, the government is established through a contract.
o The idea of a contract supposedly guarantees equality and protection for all..
o But the true purpose is to fossilize (to make something permanent or
unchanging) the very inequalities that private property has produced.
 In other words, the contract that claims to be in the interest of
everyone equally is really in the interest of the few who have been
stronger and richer as a result of the development of private property.
- The social contract seeks to address how can we be free and live together?
o Rousseau maintains, by submitting our individual, particular wills to the
collective or general wills, created trough the agreement with other free and
equal persons.
o The only justified authority is the authority that is generated out of agreements
or covenants.
o The sovereign is thus formed when free and equal persons come together and
agree to create themselves anew as a single body( collective or general will)
directed to the good of all considered together.

Rousseau's view is that humans are essentially free and were free in the State of Nature,
but civilisation has led to subservience through dependence, economic and social
inequalities, and self-comparison with others. His normative social contract theory aims
to reconcile this by restoring freedom through submission to the collective or general
will.
c. Locke

John Locke's depiction of the State of Nature differs significantly from that of Hobbes,
presenting it as a state of perfect and complete liberty to conduct one’s life as one sees
fit, free from the interference of others.

Key aspects of Locke's State of Nature include:

 Liberty, not License: Individuals are free to pursue their interests, but not to do
anything at all, or anything that one judges to be in one’s interest.
 Pre-political, but not pre-moral: The State of Nature lacks civil authority, but is
not without morality. Persons are equal and capable of discovering and being
bound by the Law of Nature.
 Law of Nature: This law, given by God, dictates that we should not harm others
in regards to their "life, health, liberty, or possessions". As everyone belongs
equally to God, taking away what is rightfully His is prohibited, preventing
people from harming one another. The Law of Nature is the basis of all morality,
according to Locke.
 Relative Peace: Due to the Law of Nature, the State of Nature is relatively
peaceful.

State of Nature is a state of liberty where persons are free to pursue their own interest
and plans, free from interference, and, because of the Law of Nature and the restrictions
that is imposes upon persons, it is relatively peaceful.

The state of nature therefore is not the same as the state of war as it is according to
Hobbes. There can be war over property disputes.

The state of nature is a state of liberty where persons recognize the Law of Nature and
therefore do not harm one another.

The state of war begins between two or more men once one man declares war on
another , by stealing from him or by trying to make him his slave.

Since in the state of nature, there is no civil power to whom men can appeal, and since
the Law of nature allows them to defend their own lives, they may then kill those who
would bring force against them. Since again, the state of nature lacks civil authority, once
war begins, it likely to continue.

- This is one of the strongest reasons that men have to abandon the state of nature
by contracting together to form a civil government.
 Property plays an essential role in Locke’s argument for civil government. According to
Locke, private property is created when a person mixes his labour with the raw materials
of nature.

Locke envisions the State of Nature not as a condition of individuals, as Hobbes does, but
as populated by families. Political society arises when individual men, representing their
families, agree to give up their executive power to punish transgressors of the Law of
Nature, handing it over to the public power of a government, thus forming "one body
politic under one government" and submitting to the will of that body.

5. Explain the Social Contract Theories of

a. Hobbes,

- Thomas Hobbes's social contract theory begins with his concept of the "state of nature,"
where individuals' lives are "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" due to self-interest
and the absence of rights and contracts.

Key aspects of Hobbes's social contract:

 State of Nature: Hobbes describes this as an anarchic condition without

leadership or sovereignty, where individuals are apolitical and asocial. Everyone
possesses unlimited natural freedoms, leading to a "war of all against all".
 Social Contract as Solution: To escape the state of nature, individuals agree to
cede some individual rights to each other. This establishes a state and a sovereign
entity that creates laws regulating social interactions, thus ending the "war of all
against all".
 Role of Government: Hobbes believed that humans consent to give up their
rights in favour of the absolute authority of a government, whether monarchical or
parliamentary. He argued for near-absolute authority, viewing absolute
government as the only alternative to the state of nature's terrifying anarchy.
Hobbes did not consider the government a party to the original contract, and
citizens aren't obligated to submit to it if it's too weak to effectively suppress
factionalism and civil unrest.
 International Relations: Hobbes's ideas also extend to international relations,
where the state system is anarchic, with states acting in their self-interest and
bound to be in conflict due to the absence of a more powerful sovereign.
  Enforcement of Laws: Hobbes wrote in Leviathan that humans need the "terrour
of some Power"; otherwise, they will not heed the law of reciprocity, "(in summe)
doing to others, as wee would be done to".

b. Rousseau,

- Jean-Jacques Rousseau's social contract theory, as outlined in his 1762 treatise The
Social Contract, posits that society is founded on the sovereignty of the 'general will'.
Rousseau's perspective differs significantly from those of Hobbes and Locke.

Key aspects of Rousseau's social contract:

 General Will: Rousseau's political theory is rooted in the concept of the ‘general
will’, which he credited to Denis Diderot. The ‘general will’ represents the
collective interest of all citizens, distinct from their individual interests.
 Legitimacy of Society: Rousseau believed that society is legitimate only when
the sovereign (the ‘general will’) acts as the sole legislator. He maintained that
individuals must accept "the total alienation to the whole community of each
associate with all his rights" to ensure equality.
 Individual Freedom: Rousseau argued that when citizens obey laws, they remain
free because the laws represent the collective will of the citizens. Disobeying the
law means rejecting "civil liberty" in favour of "natural liberty" and self-interest.
In this case, the individual will be forced to listen to the collective decision.
 Role of Law: Laws, as expressions of the ‘general will’, represent the transition
from the state of nature to civil society and serve as a civilising force, shaping the
character of the people.
 Risk Management: Rousseau analysed the social contract as a form of risk
management, suggesting that the origins of the state lie in mutual insurance.
 Popular Sovereignty: Rousseau's social contract is based on popular sovereignty,
not individual sovereignty. He believed that societal laws are upheld by the
collective will of the citizens they represent. Within elections, the will of the
establishment is the will of the collective, and barring corruption, the legitimacy
of the democratic government is absolute. Rousseau also stated that magistracy in
a real democracy is not an advantage, but a burdensome charge that the law alone
can lay on an individual.

c. Locke.

- John Locke's social contract theory differs from Hobbes's, though it retains the idea that
individuals willingly come together to form a state.

Key aspects of Locke's social contract:

  State of Nature: Locke believed that individuals in a state of nature are bound
morally by the Law of Nature, possessing the power to preserve their life, liberty,
and estate against injuries from others. He argued that without a government to
defend them, people would have no security in their rights and would live in fear.
 Purpose of Government: Locke contended that individuals would only agree to
form a state that provides a "neutral judge" to protect the lives, liberty, and
property of its citizens.
 Inviolate Freedom Under Law: Locke argued for freedom under law in his
Second Treatise of Government. He believed a government's legitimacy comes
from citizens delegating their right to violence to the government (while reserving
the right of self-defense), along with elements of other rights (like property liable
to taxation), to achieve security. This delegation grants the state a monopoly of
violence, allowing the government to act as an impartial judge and enforce the
law with the collective force of the populace.
 Natural Rights: Locke believed that natural rights were inalienable and
supersede government authority. Citizens can withdraw their obligation to obey or
change the leadership if the government fails to secure their natural rights.
 Influence on Democracy: The Lockean concept of the social contract was
invoked in the United States Declaration of Independence.

How do Hobbes', Locke's, and Rousseau's views on the State of Nature differ, and how do
these differences affect their social contract theories?

Hobbes viewed the State of Nature as a brutal "war of all against all," where life is "solitary,
poor, nasty, brutish, and short." This led him to argue for an absolute sovereign to enforce the
social contract and maintain order. Locke saw the State of Nature as governed by natural law,
where individuals possess inherent rights, including the right to life, liberty, and property. For
Locke, government's role is to protect these rights, and citizens have the right to revolt if the
government fails to do so. Rousseau believed the State of Nature was peaceful and idyllic, with
humans being naturally good and compassionate. He argued that civilization and private property
corrupt individuals, leading to inequality and oppression. His social contract aims to restore
freedom by submitting individual wills to the "general will" of the community. These different
views of human nature and pre-societal existence profoundly shape the type of social contract
each philosopher advocates.

6. Distinguish Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism.

 Capitalism: This is also referred to as a free market system and is connected to both
Conservatism and Liberalism. Socialists consider capitalism to be morally and politically
flawed.
 Socialism: Socialists advocate for the central ownership and control of the means of
production, for reasons of efficiency and/or morality. Socialists propose that the free
market system of capitalism be either replaced or reformed, with most advocating for a
radical redistribution of resources to workers.
o Central Tenet: Central ownership and control of the means of production.
 o Moral Critique of Capitalism: Argues capitalism is morally and politically
flawed.
o Central Ownership: The main disagreement is how to ensure its continued
efficiency.
o Worker Control Socialism: Sees worker-owned businesses as the way forward.
o Redistribution of Income: The strongest critique of socialist plans is on what
moral criteria resources ought to be distributed.
o Moral Critique of Capitalism: Focuses on the perceived unethical pursuit of
wealth and riches.
o Optimistic Vision: Has an optimistic vision of what humans can be once society
is reformed.
 Communism: Some socialists of the Marxist persuasion believe that socialism is the
historical era that comes after capitalism but precedes communism. In true communism,
resources are distributed from each according to their ability to each according to their
need. The Soviet system may or may not have been truly communist or socialist.

7. Why is Socialism good in theory only? Explain as concisely as you can.

- Socialism would do, imagine, of John Lenon song is the example…
o The children will be in charge of taking care of the children. Below 14
years old. You are liable. Worker parents must have somebody to take
care of their children.
o Therefore, ma free ang tao to do whatever because society can do the
rest.
o Who owns the properties and the modes of production?- it is the
government. No private property because that leads to inequality. There
are rich and poor.
o The most ideal is socialism:
o Why is socialism is impossible?
o In political philosophy, capitalist jud ta because of freedom.

8. How does the Catholic Social Teachings view private property?

- The Catholic Social Teaching addresses the topic of private property in the context of the
universal destination of goods. The Universal Destination of Goods: God intended the earth
and its resources for all people. This principle means that everyone should have access to what
they need to live a dignified life.

 Private Property: The Catholic Social Teaching recognises the right to private property.
 Obligations of Owners: The right to private property is not absolute. Owners must
consider how their use of goods affects others and the common good. They are expected
to use their resources in a way that benefits not only themselves and their families but
also the wider community.
  Misuse of Goods: The misuse of economic goods and riches is condemned, especially
acts such as fraud, exploitation and injustice towards the poor.

According to St. John XXIII: “The Church aims…at securing that the institution of private
property be such as it should be according to the plan of the divine Wisdom and the dispositions
of Nature.”

In Support of the Common Good

“The first and most fundamental principle, therefore, if one would undertake to alleviate the
condition of the masses, must be the inviolability of private property.” (Pope Leo XIII, 15)

“Redistribution and State ownership of property is “emphatically unjust” as it would “rob the
lawful possessor, distort the functions of the State, and create utter confusion in the
community.” (Pope Leo XIII, 4)

Pope Leo XIII correctly foresaw that if private property was taken from rightful owners it would
be workers and the poor who would suffer the most. (Rerum Novarum, 5) Private property
contributes “in the most unmistakable manner to the peace and tranquility of human
existence.” (Pope Leo XIII, 11)

Limits State Action

Private property “is a natural right which the State cannot suppress.” (Pope St. John XXIII, 9)

“History and experience testify that in those political regimes which do not recognize the rights
of private ownership of goods… the exercise of freedom in almost every other direction is
suppressed or stifled. This suggests, surely, that the exercise of freedom finds its guarantee and
incentive in the right of ownership.” (Pope St. John XXIII, 109)

Since private property “is circumscribed by the necessities of social living those who seek to
restrict the individual character of ownership to such a degree that in fact they destroy it are
mistaken and in error.” (Pope Pius XII, 48) So, while “the State has the right to control [private
property]” it can “by no means to absorb it altogether.” (Pope Leo XIII, 47)

“The right to private property is not absolute and unconditional”. Contingent, Social, &
Personal

Catholic social teaching “has never upheld the right as absolute and untouchable.” A “position
that defends the exclusive right to private ownership of the means of production as an
untouchable ‘dogma’ of economic life…continues to remain unacceptable”. (Pope St. John Paul
II, 14)

Property has a Social Character: “By its very nature private property has a social quality
which is based on the law of the common destination of earthly goods.” (Gaudium et Spes,
71) and “The right of having a share of earthly goods sufficient for oneself and one’s family
belongs to everyone” (Gaudium et Spes, 69)

Entails a Personal Responsibility: “The ownership of any property makes its holder a steward
of Providence, with the task of making it fruitful and communicating its benefits to others, first
of all his family.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2404)

“In short, ‘as the Fathers of the Church and other eminent theologians tell us, the right of private
property may never be exercised to the detriment of the common good.’”

Pope St. Paul VI, 23

9. Why is social status not a reward? explain.

Ascribed vs. Achieved Status:
 Some status is ascribed (given at birth, like family lineage), while others are
achieved (earned through effort, like a professional degree). Ascribed status
clearly isn't a "reward" for personal action.
 Even achieved status is often dependent on many factors outside of a persons
control.
In essence, social status is a position within a social structure that can lead to various
rewards. 1 It is not, in and of itself, a reward.
Hierarchical Structure:
 Social status exists within a hierarchy. It's about relative position within a group
or society. This means it's not simply a "goodie" received, but a place within a
structure.
 This placement dictates access to resources, influence, and opportunities, which
are the things that provide the actual rewards.

Equality Before God: Catholicism emphasizes that all people are equal before God,
regardless of their social status. This equality is rooted in the belief that every person is
created in the image and likeness of God, and thus, each person has inherent dignity
and worth. Instead, the focus is not on the social status reward but on ensuring that
everyone, particularly the less fortunate, has access to the resources needed for a
dignified life
10. Explain the Marxist-Leninist mode of destabilization. Give a concrete example
of how it works.

- The Marxist-Leninist mode of destabilization, in essence, involves a strategy to

weaken and ultimately overthrow existing political and social structures. It's
rooted in the core tenets of Marxist-Leninist ideology, which emphasizes class
struggle and the need for a revolutionary vanguard party.
- Marxist-Leninists focus on identifying and exploiting the inherent contradictions
within a society, particularly those related to class divisions. This involves
highlighting economic inequalities, social injustices, and political oppression.
o They are revolutionaries; the worst is they are leading the proletariat or the
working class into revolution.
o They often criticize the existing regime and promote revolutionary groups.
o Marxist-Leninists often seek to build alliances with various social groups
that are dissatisfied with the existing order, such as oppressed minorities,
student movements, and labor unions. MGA NPA!!!
o The ultimate goal is the seizure of state power, typically through
revolutionary means. This can involve a variety of tactics, including armed
struggle, mass protests, and infiltration of key institutions.
 NEW PEOPLES ARMY
 The CPP has consistently emphasized the contradictions within
Philippine society, focusing on:
 Economic inequality and poverty, particularly in rural areas.
 Landlordism and the exploitation of farmers.
 What they perceive as "imperialism," particularly the influence of
the United States.
 They provide ideological leadership and organizational structure to
the revolutionary movement.
 The CPP and its associated organizations engage in extensive
propaganda and agitation, aiming to:
 Raise "class consciousness" among the working class and
peasantry.
 Mobilize support for the armed struggle.
 Criticize the government and its policies.