O’Banion 1

Lauren O’Banion

Professor Carter

POLS 301

1 May 2019

Political Philosophy

In the polarizing political environment that is the United States, it is easy to assume that

the only political opinions of any importance are from democrats and republicans. The average

American has little knowledge of anything other than those two parties and even less knowledge

of what either of those parties support or where their core beliefs come from. Although that was

just an example of how little people know of political ideologies and the core of their own

beliefs, it is a relevant one. Being able to understand and discuss political principles is a skill

most members of the public lack. Discussions about political theory are often uncertain and

unspecific, although; there are some topics that are of great importance to developing a personal

political philosophy. Communities, citizens, structures, rulers, authority, justice, and change are

the perennial questions of political life. These perennial questions are broad yet central to the

ideals of many political ideologies and are crucial for creating a personal philosophy.

Additionally, ontology, human nature, nature of society, and epistemology are philosophical

assumptions that are even broader than the perennial questions and more foundational to the lives

of citizens. Of the eleven topics, I chose to discuss the following; human nature, nature of

society, communities, citizens, authority, and justice. To better understand how humans live, and

how they should aspire to live, I have created my own public philosophy. By building from ideas

presented by classical liberalism like C.B Macpherson, taking influences from anarchists like
 O’Banion 2

Emma Goldman, and referencing contemporary liberals like Arthur Okum, the public philosophy

I have created focuses on human equality, collective societies, local identities, inclusive

citizenship, minimal authority, and economic justice.

The current climate of our society makes it hard to fathom any similarity that could

possibly be true about the nature of all humans. Additionally, throughout history various political

philosophers have held a slew of different conceptions about how humans act in their purest

form. At their truest selves’ humans are utility maximizers, and relatively self-interested. In the

past, the idea that humans are naturally self-interested has been supported by classical liberals

like C.B. Macpherson. (Schumaker, 135) However, humans find great reward from being

embedded in communities and naturally form voluntary associations with other humans. Since

humans can maximize utility by being actively involved in their communities and associations,

humans can also be viewed as social beings who take great pride and satisfaction in caring for

the other members of their communities. This idea has been popularized by anarchists like

Emma Goldman, and to an extent, Peter Kropotkin. (Schumaker FIPP, 138) Although the

concepts of humans as utility maximizers and as community-oriented beings seems

contradictory, it makes sense that humans behave in such manner. Think of wolves, for example,

a wolf without a pack is seen as a lone wolf who cares for only himself, alternatively; it is

common to find many wolves in voluntary groups where the members work together to ensure

pack survival. The wolf analogy can be used to explain the behaviors of humans. As singular

beings, humans tend to care for themselves and themselves only, ensuring their survival by

maximizing utility even if it means wronging others, but when a human is a member of a

community they can be encouraged to care for the needs and desires of all other members, or the

collective utility of the group. In this conception of human nature, all humans are equal in their
 O’Banion 3

position as human beings all with equal autonomy to pursue their own interests and maximize

their own utility. However, it often happens that the personal interests of humans coincide with

their desires and inclinations to form communities. Therefore, humans although rather self-

interested beings have the natural inclination to form together in groups and become community

regarding over all else.

Throughout history, there have been many different models presented about the essence

of human societies and the origins of social life. From the layer-cake model that each society has

levels to the orchestra model that presents society as a group of interrelated people who are led

by a single conductor to promote solidarity. (Schumaker FIPP, 154) In my own conception of

society, humans who are, in their own respects’ natural utility maximizers, come together to

achieve goals for the common good. It is important to note that the groups formed should be

voluntarily created and participated in, and that no coercion should be used to create the groups.

This conception is like the one held by the radical left, who believe that societies form in order to

achieve the collective good through political means. (Schumaker FIPP, 168-170) Following that

the members of society put the collective good above personal interests, this form of society

focuses on lessening the advantageous gaps between its members by distributing public goods

and making decisions that allow the benefits to be felt by every member. However, because a

society in this form requires a consensus from its members regarding the best interests of the

collective, it is best that a society of this form remain relatively small. It is imperative that this

society remain small and rather intimate so that its members feel a sense of responsibility for one

another and ensure that the members remain interested in the common good of the collective.

Problems with this form of society arise when the number of members becomes too great, and

the members no longer feel responsible for each other; at this point the nature of humans to be
 O’Banion 4

utility maximizers overpowers the desire for a collective good. The community regrading

societies function most effectively in small sizes where all members can come to a consensus

over how best to achieve collective benefits.

Community identity is an integral part of human life and it has been since Socrates lived

in Athens. (Schumaker, FIPP 207) Political communities, or polities, have changed overtime but

questions regarding which polities should be most influential and integral to the lives of citizens

still stands. As mentioned before, society benefits most when the groups are small enough that

all members can feel some semblance of intimacy and responsibility for each other. Therefore,

communities need to be structured in a way that puts major emphasis on the voluntary

associations that form between its members. It follows then, that the community that is the most

important basis of identity for citizens be their own immediate neighborhoods, towns, and cities.

The smaller communities allow for citizens to engage in friendships and share collective benefits

with the people that they live amongst. Additionally, these smaller polities create social roots for

their members and foster a sense of civic responsibility for the collective, as well as encourage

participation in the polity itself or within smaller clubs and organizations. Small clubs and

organizations, like churches and sports groups allow citizens to pursue identities that are

immediate to their own lives and are a form of self-expression within their larger town or city

polities. Local polities are best for preserving and passing down traditions and strong moral

values, however; citizens cannot be restricted to only caring about the endeavors of their local

polities and should hold allegiance to other polities outside local towns and cities. The idea that

citizens need to have other community identities outside of their immediate ones has been taught

by classical liberals, contemporary liberals, and contemporary conservatives among others.

Coinciding with the beliefs of contemporary liberals, citizens should feel allegiance to people
 O’Banion 5

outside of their immediate localities, thus it follows that citizens hold allegiance to larger, state

or national polities. State and national polities benefit citizens by being more sovereign than their

immediate localities and by having the ability to set certain standards and regulations for the

treatments of its citizens. To conclude, local polities are the best way for citizens to preserve

their social values and traditions, small organizations are best for developing personal interests,

and large national polities are best for securing the rights of all citizens within its borders.

Questions of citizenship can cause a great deal of disagreement amongst political

philosophers and are as pertinent to today’s world as they were hundreds and even thousands of

years ago. Some questions of citizenship include; who qualifies as a citizen, what rights are

granted to citizens, and what obligations do citizens have in return. Regarding who can be a

citizen, any adult person who is a member of a polity, specifically at the state or national level,

should be granted citizenship to that polity. It is imperative that citizenship is granted to all adult

members of a community without regards to race, ethnicity, gender, creed, or orientation.

Allowing for all members of a polity to count as citizens will further support the notion of civil

responsibility and allegiance to other members of the polity, as presented in the last paragraph. In

addition, status of citizenship should be rather easy to acquire when moving amongst nations.

Joseph Carens defends this call for open borders between nations, stating “citizenship in Western

liberal democracies is the modern equivalent of feudal privilege.” (Schumaker, PTR 217) Since

no one chooses were to be born, having closed borders directly undermines the idea that humans

all have equal moral standing. Moving on, the rights that citizens of a community have are to be

extensive and apply to all groups within the community. Much like the ideas supported by

contemporary liberals, citizens should have many protections against the government in their

private and public lives. (Schumaker, FIPP 243) Finally, in return for the rights granted by the
 O’Banion 6

government to citizens, citizens have certain civic obligations to uphold. These obligations can

include participation in elections and political affairs and respecting the rights of other citizens in

their community. Although members of polities should be granted citizenship and be promised

certain protections against the government, the same citizens have obligations in return for their

status that must be abided by.

Governmental authority is when the government has a legitimate right to exercise power

over a community. Questions of governmental authority are often accompanied with either deep

distrust in governmental involvement or welcomed with open hands. As already discussed,

humans are all equal in moral standing, so governmental authority should focus mainly on

preserving and advancing the rights of all citizens, all while avoiding excessive intervention.

Even if government should remain rather uninvolved in the personal affairs of its citizens,

governments do have the ability to enact laws that lessen the economic and social gap between

its most and least advantaged citizens. These duties of government are closely related to the

beliefs held by contemporary liberals, who believe that the main duty of government is “to

address economic, social, and security problems.” (Schumaker, FIPP 326) An example of how

the government can address certain social issues would be by distributing wealth in order to

lessen economic problems and creating equal opportunity government programs in order to

remedy certain social problems within society. As presented, it seems that governmental

authority is limited to reactive instead of proactive governance, however; that is not the case. The

government should have certain already established laws that provide social provisions for its

citizens, protect against excessive intervention in private life, and promote equality amongst the

different members of the community. Although, a limited government is ideal, sometimes

coercion is needed to solve certain social problems. In short, the government has the authority to
 O’Banion 7

protect the rights of its citizens, while having limited say over their private affairs, with the

option to use progressive authority when it is necessary to solve difficult social problems.

In political terms, justice is the distribution of income, wealth, and power, among other

things, to the citizens of a community. Often, justice is conceived differently by different

ideologies, all choosing to focus on select aspects of the concept. The time has come to move on

from the classical liberal proclamation, “all men are created equal” that does not establish

anything other than the idea that humans all have equal moral standing and move towards

actively securing equality in the market for the members of the community. Arthur Okum

suggests that although capitalism is efficient, it typically generates “unequal slices of pie.”

(Schumaker, FIPP 356) It the governments duty to do its best to redistribute the wealth that

comes from the capitalism pie. Okum further suggests that when governments take time to

redistribute wealth, they inadvertently become less efficient. (Schumaker, FIPP 356) However, I

believe the emphasis should be put on equality instead of economic efficiency. If the government

is to be just and ensure aggregate equality for its members, in the long run; the economic

efficiency of the polity will increase. The tradeoff between efficiency and equality should not be

a hard decision to make, because any emphasis on efficiency furthers the inequality of the polity,

while focusing on equality will reap rewards instead of perpetuating a long-lived social struggle.

The means by which the government should try to create more equality in the market would be

by differentiating between formal equal treatment and fair equal treatment. In this case, formal

equal treatment is the right for everyone to compete for positions in society where no one is

disadvantaged, alternatively; fair equal treatment recognizes inequalities in abilities and

circumstances. (Schumaker, FIPP 357) The responsibility of government to ensure justice means
 O’Banion 8

that equality must be priority over efficiency, and that the undeserved disadvantages among

citizens must be recognized and corrected.

Everyone possesses their own political philosophy, whether it is known to the person or

not. Political philosophies are important for understanding and discussing the affairs of

government and taking an active role in participating in the political process. Typically, political

philosophies are influenced by partisanship while others are intrinsic to our own personal beliefs

and values. I believe that the political philosophy I presented possesses a good mixture of respect

for individuals, emphasis on the collective, and inclusivity in communities. The ideas I have

presented are more descriptive than prescriptive in nature, and I realize that many of my ideas

would only work in an idealistic society. However, considering the conception that humans are

community regarding in nature, all the subsequent principles I presented would be ensured to be

true. The idea that humans are somehow altruistic while being self-interested is often disputed by

philosophers but is something I hold to be true. Community regarding humans are present in

societies that are structured to emphasize the overall utility of a community, and in addition the

community regarding citizens work to become deeply embedded in their community. In addition,

the stress on voluntary associations and inclusive citizenship further supports the claim that

humans actively form important relationships with each other. Last, the ideas discussed

regarding the equal moral standing of all humans is reinforced by the emphasis on protecting

citizens’ private affairs and securing equal opportunity for citizens that makes up for undeserved

advantages and disadvantages. The core aspect of this philosophy is the freedom and autonomy

of community regarding citizens to continually pursue the greater good for the whole of society.
 O’Banion 9

Sources Cited

Schumaker, Paul. From Ideologies to Public Philosophies: An Introduction to Political Theory.

Blackwell Pub., 2008.

Schumaker, Paul. The Political Theory Reader. Blackwell Publishing, 2010.