Zach Musgrave / NSP Colloquium – Final Essays / 15 December 2007

 

1

            If the freshman NSP colloquium were to assign only one reading over the course of the semester, I would recommend John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty. Mill covers each of the main themes of the course (liberty, enlightenment, class, rights, power, and leadership) in some level of detail, and his philosophy is consistent with that of a liberal education.

            Unlike many of his predecessors, Mill advocated both economic and moral freedom for the entire populace. This produced a marked change from the Victorian
“order” of things where people were expected to follow what was “proper” throughout their lives. It applies still in today’s modern society where citizens are expected to make their own decisions as to how to live their lives, a concept not in existence throughout most of history. Mill’s theory of true liberty is what showed me the true value of a “liberal” education.

            Enlightenment, or the state of independent thought, is another correlation to liberty, because according to Mill one can’t make decisions without another’s guidance if independent thought is not present.

            John Stuart Mill is one of the most noted utilitarian philosophers, which is by nature a classless philosophy not concerned with social structure. He advocates that each person should maximize his or her own benefit, as long as they don’t harm anyone else. Since each person will then think independently about how to attain their goals, the class divisions will blur and everyone will live in relative harmony. But despite his utilitarian views, he is not an anarchist, and his belief that “citizens will be content to share their rights… [without] tyranny” helped me understand why modern government is able to function without acting as a police state (On Liberty).

            Based Mill’s “harm principle,” it also follows that “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exerted… is to prevent harm to others” (On Liberty). Where power can (and should) be applied in the context of good governance has always seemed to me a complex issue, and Mill’s work helped clarify it for me. And for the average citizen to benefit from this arrangement, he or she must know how to make decisions for themselves, to exhibit leadership and to use common sense in their own life while deferring to the government the rights they do not retain. And in the process, they must remain civil (i.e. not cause harm) to their compatriots.

            In closing, I think On Liberty is the most worthy work read this year because it covered all the themes of the course and made me see the world I live in in a different light. Mill’s moderate theories of utilitarianism and the relationship between a government and its citizenry cause his philosophy to be widely applicable and easily studied. As a result, I think it is imperative reading for a course on “Enlightenment, Rights, and Power”.

 

A strong essay that nicely summarizes Mill and applies it to the main themes of the course. 95

 

2

            Despite its status as one of the most notable political science texts ever, I disagreed with more of Machiavelli’s The Prince than I did with any of the other texts read in the NSP colloquium this semester. It epitomizes two-facedness, the concept of information control, and the lust for power and status that has often defined the ruling class throughout history.

            Machiavelli posits forth the idea of an ideal ruler, a “Prince”, who must ignore moral and societal conventions for the maintenance of his status as a prince and the extension of his power. The Prince must exert control over all facets of his government, must be constantly on the lookout for plots to kill or depose him, and must also present a respectable face to his public.

            I don’t like the idea of this “two-faced” ruler – who may very well profess one set of beliefs but act on their inverse. In my opinion, good government is achieved through transparency and oversight, not through a single nominally incorruptible ruler who can do more or less whatever he wants with no one the wiser for it. Machiavelli encourages the Prince to show a faithful, religious, merciful face to member of the public, so they will consider him a fair, worthy ruler who espouses the same moral values they do. But in practically the next sentence, Machiavelli says the Prince must not actually have these values because he cannot hope to reign within their limitations. This statement effectively sanctions massacres, torture, false imprisonment, and scores of other unacceptable practices, which I do not consider valid modes of operation in any sort of government. [A direct quote here would have been useful.]

            Machiavelli seems to believe that this regression from moral conduct is necessary to the Prince’s reign because the world does not adhere to the idea of ceteris paribus, that is, the idea of “all other things being equal”, or “in a perfect world”. The world may not be perfect, but this does not mean that its rulers can just do whatever they desire to achieve their ends! There has to be some sort of higher law that even those with earthly power must adhere to. This higher law of morality does not have to keep rulers from retaining their power, but it does have to keep them more or less in check when it comes to exercising said power.

            Despite my ardent disagreement with the views Machiavelli posits in The Prince, I do believe that it should be included in next year’s syllabus. Machiavelli puts forth interesting arguments, at the very least, and their discordance with normal moral principles will at least cause some of next year’s scholars to actually think about why they believe what they already do, and at most will cause them to believe something entirely new and different. To me, this is reason enough to mark The Prince for inclusion in next year’s colloquium.

A solid essay. 90

 

EXAM GRADE= 92.5