Suchergebnisse

This book looks at how modern philosophers pass on myths about prehistory.

Why do political philosophers talk so much about the Stone Age? The state of nature, the origin of property, the origin of government, and the primordial nature of inequality and war are popular topics in political philosophy, but are they being used as more than just illustrative examples? Does the best available evidence from archaeology and anthropology support or conflict with the stories being passed on by political philosophers?

This book presents a philosophical look at the origin of civilization, examining political theories to show how claims about prehistory are used and presents evidence that much of what we think we know about human origins comes not from scientific investigation but from the imagination of philosophers.

Abstract
This article argues the following points. The Hobbesian hypothesis, which we define as the claim that all people are better off under state authority than they would be outside of it, is an empirical claim about all stateless societies. It is an essential premise in most contractarian justifications of government sovereignty. Many small- scale societies are stateless. Anthropological evidence from them provides sufficient reason to doubt the truth of the hypothesis, if not to reject it entirely. Therefore, contractarian theory has not done what it claims to do: it has not justified state sovereignty to each person subject to it by demonstrating that they benefit from that authority. To be justified in contractarian terms, states have to do something to improve the living standards of disadvantaged people under their rule.

Frontmatter -- CONTENTS -- PREFACE -- ACKNOWLEDGMENTS -- Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION -- Chapter 2 MODERN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY AND PREHISTORIC ANTHROPOLOGY: SOME PRELIMINARY ISSUES -- Chapter 3 THE HOBBESIAN HYPOTHESIS: HOW A COLONIAL PREJUDICE BECAME AN ESSENTIAL PREMISE IN THE MOST POPULAR JUSTIFICATION OF GOVERNMENT -- Chapter 4 JOHN LOCKE AND THE HOBBESIAN HYPOTHESIS: HOW A SIMILAR COLONIAL PREJUDICE BECAME AN ESSENTIAL PREMISE IN THE MOST POPULAR JUSTIFICATION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS -- Chapter 5 THE HOBBESIAN HYPOTHESIS IN EIGHTEENTHCENTURY POLITICAL THEORY -- Chapter 6 THE HOBBESIAN HYPOTHESIS IN NINETEENTHCENTURY POLITICAL THEORY -- Chapter 7 THE HOBBESIAN HYPOTHESIS IN CONTEMPORARY POLITICAL THEORY -- Chapter 8 THE HOBBESIAN HYPOTHESIS IN ANTHROPOLOGY -- Chapter 9 NASTY AND BRUTISH? AN EMPIRICAL ASSESSMENT OF THE VIOLENCE HYPOTHESIS -- Chapter 10 ARE YOU BETTER OFF NOW THAN YOU WERE 12,000 YEARS AGO? AN EMPIRICAL ASSESSMENT OF THE HOBBESIAN HYPOTHESIS -- Chapter 11 IMPLICATIONS -- REFERENCES -- INDEX

This title debunks three false claims commonly accepted by contemporary political philosophers regarding property systems: that inequality is natural, inevitable, or incompatible with freedom; that capitalism is more consistent with negative freedom than any other conceivable economic system; and that the normative principles of appropriation and voluntary transfer applied in the world in which we live support a capitalist system with strong, individualist and unequal private property rights. The authors review the history of the use and importance of these claims in philosophy, and use thorough anthropological and historical evidence to refute them.

This book looks at how modern philosophers pass on myths about prehistory.Why do political philosophers talk so much about the Stone Age? The state of nature, the origin of property, the origin of government, and the primordial nature of inequality and war are popular topics in political philosophy, but are they being used as more than just illustrative examples? Does the best available evidence from archaeology and anthropology support or conflict with the stories being passed on by political philosophers?This book presents a philosophical look at the origin of civilization, examining political theories to show how claims about prehistory are used and presents evidence that much of what we think we know about human origins comes not from scientific investigation but from the imagination of philosophers.