Source/Voting Rights and Suffrage - Revision history

Import-sysop: Import-sysop moved page Voting Rights and Suffrage to Source/Voting Rights and Suffrage: move to source

2023-01-04T13:47:31Z

Import-sysop moved page Voting Rights and Suffrage to Source/Voting Rights and Suffrage: move to source

← Older revision	Revision as of 13:47, 4 January 2023
(No difference)

Dwallace: /* Rousseau's Thought */

2022-08-13T00:29:57Z

Rousseau's Thought

@@ Line 770: / Line 770: @@
 ====Modern Capitalism====
 ====Rousseau's Thought====
 ====Kantianism====

Edlee2000: /* Lockean Thought/English Empiricism */

2022-08-03T17:48:37Z

Lockean Thought/English Empiricism

@@ Line 752: / Line 752: @@
 ====Lockean Thought/English Empiricism====
 ====Physiocrats====
 ====Scottish Enlightenment====

Kbrard: /* Hobbesian Thought */

2022-08-03T17:33:10Z

Hobbesian Thought

@@ Line 728: / Line 728: @@
 ====Reformation Christianity====
 ====Hobbesian Thought====
 ====Lockean Thought/English Empiricism====
 ====Physiocrats====

Edlee2000: /* Platonism */

2022-08-03T17:31:28Z

Platonism

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:31, 3 August 2022
Line 637:		Line 637:
	In Plato’s Republic, Socrates disparages the democratic system for its failure to uphold virtues within both the individual and society. He argues that an “insatiable desire” (Plato, Republic, Book VIII, 562B) for freedom will lead to injustice in the state, as class divides will cease to exist and individuals are dictated by their appetitive desires. The system proposed in Laws, however, acts as an intermediary between the ideals of Kallipolis and the reality of human nature, by merging principles of absolutism with democratic practices. A measured equality is maintained through the casting of lots, and importance is stressed on the education of citizens to be able to maintain virtue within society, reflected in the appointment of leaders.		In Plato’s Republic, Socrates disparages the democratic system for its failure to uphold virtues within both the individual and society. He argues that an “insatiable desire” (Plato, Republic, Book VIII, 562B) for freedom will lead to injustice in the state, as class divides will cease to exist and individuals are dictated by their appetitive desires. The system proposed in Laws, however, acts as an intermediary between the ideals of Kallipolis and the reality of human nature, by merging principles of absolutism with democratic practices. A measured equality is maintained through the casting of lots, and importance is stressed on the education of citizens to be able to maintain virtue within society, reflected in the appointment of leaders.

	~~Bibliography:~~
	Christ, Matthew R. “Conscription of Hoplites in Classical Athens,” The Classical Quarterly, 51, no. 2 (2001): 398–422, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3556519		Christ, Matthew R. “Conscription of Hoplites in Classical Athens,” The Classical Quarterly, 51, no. 2 (2001): 398–422, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3556519

Edlee2000: /* Platonism */

2022-08-03T17:31:06Z

Platonism

@@ Line 615: / Line 615: @@
 ====Buddhism====
 ====Platonism====
 ====Aristotelian thought====
 An Aristotelian approach to voting is complex, in part because democracies of his day functioned differently than those today. Aristotle broke the selection of officials into three main categories. The first was selection of officials by lot in which case office would be open to all citizens. Aristotle viewed selection by lot to be a democratic feature. The second category was selecting officials by means of elections, which he considered to be more oligarchic and aristocratic. The third category was a combination of the first two, in which some members were elected for the purpose of certain matters and others were chosen either by lot from all or by lot from a preselected group, or these two groups worked together in the same offices (Aristotle 350 B.C.E., 1298b5).

Megan-D: /* Roman Legal and Political Thought */

2021-08-17T19:03:00Z

Roman Legal and Political Thought

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:03, 17 August 2021
Line 673:		Line 673:
	====Miscellaneous Hellenistic Schools (epicureans, academics, skeptics, etc.)====		====Miscellaneous Hellenistic Schools (epicureans, academics, skeptics, etc.)====
	====Roman Legal and Political Thought====		====Roman Legal and Political Thought====
			The Constitution of Ancient Rome consisted largely of unwritten laws and was commonly enforced according to precedent and tradition. Hence, the right to vote and to participate in the electoral process was not written explicitly within the Constitution of the Roman Republic (Lintott 2015, 3). Greek historian Polybius did explain, however, that “the people had the right to make or rescind any law,” and he emphasized the sovereignty of the Roman people who would validate Roman political decisions (Atkins 2018, 9). Within Ancient Rome, voting assemblies would give their approval of the laws and the magistrates. Such assemblies were referred to as “the people,” and these groups, which excluded women and slaves, would represent the Roman citizens (Atkins 2018, 19). This differed from a system of “one-man, one-vote” as was employed in Athens. The three assemblies of Rome included the Curiate Assembly, the Tribal Assembly, and the Centuriate Assembly. Roman assemblies were formed on the basis of wealth, military status, and sometimes religion (Hall 1964, 270). The election of consuls, the gathering of assemblies, and other voting procedures were not explained within the Constitution or in any specific legislature, however, they were commonly referred to in books from religious colleges, which had some authority at the time (Lintott 2015, 4).

			The right to vote was often limited by the fact that not all votes carried the same weight. The successive order in which groups voted could have influenced election outcomes and the speed with which election outcomes reached a majority. Members of the higher class were commonly in assemblies with fewer people, allowing their individual voice and vote to be more impactful than that of someone from a lower class in a larger assembly. Similarly, group decisions dictated the vote, rather than individual votes. It is likely that more powerful men or families within each assembly would have had more power and influence over their assembly (Hall 1964, 270). To this extent, voting blocks could be organized in order to favor certain political agendas (Atkins 2018, 21). The sovereignty of the citizens of Rome was subject to limitations. In Rome, the citizens were limited insofar as the electoral decisions made by voting assemblies had to be approved by the Roman aristocratic council. Citizens taking part in voting assemblies were not given the ability to propose new legislation, rather they were only able to vote for or against legislation introduced by magistrates (Atkins 2018, 19).

			Roman historian Titus Livius was more concerned with achieving political ownership rather than equal citizen participation. Livius argued that “equal liberty” for the people meant that they would be able to elect whoever they wanted to the magistrate. To this extent, “equal liberty” meant citizens having complete decision making power over who would govern (Atkins 2018, 51). Gaius Canuleius, like Livius, supported opening up the consulship to allow plebeians to join, though he was more concerned with equal citizen participation, suggesting that all citizens should have an equal vote in order to avoid domination (Atkins 2018, 52). Although Ancient Rome did not necessarily achieve to the fullest extent such political ownership or equal citizen participation, and hence there is some debate over whether Ancient Rome truly was a democracy, Romans did recognize the need for checks and balances in a stable regime.

	====Early Christianity====		====Early Christianity====
	====Thomism and medieval Christianity====		====Thomism and medieval Christianity====

Jere: /* Process Philosophy */

2021-08-13T20:27:03Z

Process Philosophy

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:27, 13 August 2021
Line 741:		Line 741:

	====Process Philosophy====		====Process Philosophy====

			Process philosophy is a philosophical tradition that describes reality as primarily being made up of processes or events, rather than objects (Rescher, 2000, pg. 4). This means that when we look at supposedly static objects in our world, we are actually seeing a constantly changing event or an action taking place, and things that seem like they are static are just processes that are relatively more stable than others. Nicholas Rescher describes the main claim succinctly: “Even on the surface of it, verbs have as good a claim to reality as nouns. For process theorists, ''becoming'' is no less important than ''being''…The phenomenology of change is stressed precisely because the difference between a museum and the real world of an ever-changing nature is to be seen as crucial to our understanding of reality” (pg. 4).

			While a political connection to Process Philosophy’s metaphysical and ontological claims seems far-fetched, Alfred North Whitehead—perhaps the most rigorous and defining theorist for Process Philosophy in the 20th century—claimed that the goal of philosophy is to “…voyage towards the larger generalities” of human life and behavior (Whitehead, 1979, pg. 94). This meaning that an understanding of the nature of reality will then give you access to insights of psychology, aesthetics, ethics, sociology, language, and virtually every other human enquiry and experience.

			The majority of political history, static roles were assigned to rulers and their subjects. A king and his identity were stamped definitively, and this title was described as chosen by God; the king’s unchanging identity was a thing ''in'' the universe. The Process Philosophy critique of this type of conception is decidedly an aesthetic one: “People instinctively dislike being described in thing-classificatory terms…Such object-property attributions indicate a fixed nature that we naturally see as repugnant to ourselves” (pg. 14). This is to say, a political system which tries its hardest to stay the same and not go through changes in power and interactions goes against how reality is presented and organized to us, as well as what we value in ourselves and others.

			With this analysis, the right to vote can clearly be understood. After thousands of years of static politics, people began to advocate for a political system which would better reflect the dynamism, novelty, and change seen in reality. The right to vote allows for processes like changes in leadership, as well as changes in the law and governance. Due to the ever-changing opinions and contexts that individuals go through, the right to vote allows for a reflection of this novelty. Such a system is empowering due to it allowing individuals to express themselves as ever changing processes themselves as opposed to static objects and it is metaphysically accurate according to our natures and the nature of reality. Also, it is telling that such political ideals came about during the Enlightenment, a period of time where understanding of the world without appeal to philosophical and religious tradition was given major emphasis. As we learned more about the world, we learned about the ideal political system.

	====Social Darwinism====		====Social Darwinism====

Jere: /* Behaviorism */

2021-08-13T20:25:08Z

Behaviorism

@@ Line 767: / Line 767: @@
 ====Continental Philosophy/Frankfurt School====
 ====Behaviorism====
 ====Feminist Thought====
 ====Postmodernism====

Jere: /* Ancient Chinese Philosophy */

2021-08-13T20:23:41Z

Ancient Chinese Philosophy

@@ Line 627: / Line 627: @@
 ====Ancient Chinese Philosophy====
 ====Stoicism====
 ====Early Indian Philosophy====