If a ruler does not respect the rights of its people, the people should overthrow the ruler
Louis XVI did not respect the rights of the French people
Therefore the people of France were right to overthrown the monarchy of Louis XVI
This follows the model of:
if p then q
p
q
The logic of this syllogism is logical, however is it true?
If we break it down by sentences we can firstly see that in the first sentence there are many words that we can question. For example what does the word "overthrow" mean? Does it mean to just replace the person with someone else? Does it call for a reelection or replacement of the ruler? Does it mean to kill or exile that person? The term overthrow can mean many different things and can depend on how the people react to that situation. In my opinion here it would mean to take the ruler away from the power with some sort of force or fight.
We can also wonder what it means to a certain person to not respect the rights of the people, what does the ruler have to do or not do in order to have that said about him? What rights does the Louis need to respect in order for the people not to overthrow him?
A reason why they might have thought that he disrespected their right is his use of money. He used a lot of the money to pay for wars and didn't give a lot of money to the people of his country. However the money issue did not start with Louis the XVI it had started before and unfortunately Louis XVI came into power when the people were fed up with it and decided to rebel against it. Therefore the problem did not only come from Louis. Also Louis might have thought that was he was doing was what was right for the people and didn't realise that he had to differently. People's rights can be very different from person to person and therefore some people might have thought he was violating them and others didn't.
A big word used in this premise is the word respect. This is a word that can interpreted in many different ways. When you research it in the dictionary it has various different meanings. It can be (1) To feel or show deferential regard for; esteem. Or (2) To avoid violation of or interference and it can also be (3) To relate or refer to; concern. Which of the three definitions are they referring to in this premise? I think that here they could be talking about all three. The first one because they could be saying that Louis didn't show esteem for them by not following their will and so this means that he didn't have any esteem for them. It could be relating to the second definition because they believe that he did not avoid violation but rather he violated, probably their "rights". And finally it could also be the third one because the people could be thinking that the ruler did not relate or have concern for them which therefore means that he did not respect. We can see by this analysis that depending on the way that you look at the meaning of a certain word it may not mean the same thing. In this case, the word respect could be a respect in many different ways which makes it hard for us to know in what way the people thought that Louis had not respected their rights.
Lastly in the last sentence of this syllogism we see that France has the "right" to overthrow the monarchy. But what does it mean to have the right? Each time a ruler doesn't do as the people please does that mean that they are in possession of the right to take them away. What composes people's rights? Here again we have a word that can mean various different things depending on how a person interprets it. Rights can be defined as: (1) Conforming with or conformable to justice, law, or morality or (2) In accordance with fact, reason, or truth; correct or (3) Fitting, proper, or appropriate and many others ... Here again the people could see that if Louis did something not conformable to justice they can overthrow him. Then if he does something that is not correct or isn't the truth he has to be overthrown. But after that definition couldn't we defend that if Louis does something that isn't reasonable or he doesn't tell the complete truth, he is a human after all and that happens to everyone. So while a ruler, Louis isn't allowed to be human?
A big word used in this premise is the word respect. This is a word that can interpreted in many different ways. When you research it in the dictionary it has various different meanings. It can be (1) To feel or show deferential regard for; esteem. Or (2) To avoid violation of or interference and it can also be (3) To relate or refer to; concern. Which of the three definitions are they referring to in this premise? I think that here they could be talking about all three. The first one because they could be saying that Louis didn't show esteem for them by not following their will and so this means that he didn't have any esteem for them. It could be relating to the second definition because they believe that he did not avoid violation but rather he violated, probably their "rights". And finally it could also be the third one because the people could be thinking that the ruler did not relate or have concern for them which therefore means that he did not respect. We can see by this analysis that depending on the way that you look at the meaning of a certain word it may not mean the same thing. In this case, the word respect could be a respect in many different ways which makes it hard for us to know in what way the people thought that Louis had not respected their rights.
Lastly in the last sentence of this syllogism we see that France has the "right" to overthrow the monarchy. But what does it mean to have the right? Each time a ruler doesn't do as the people please does that mean that they are in possession of the right to take them away. What composes people's rights? Here again we have a word that can mean various different things depending on how a person interprets it. Rights can be defined as: (1) Conforming with or conformable to justice, law, or morality or (2) In accordance with fact, reason, or truth; correct or (3) Fitting, proper, or appropriate and many others ... Here again the people could see that if Louis did something not conformable to justice they can overthrow him. Then if he does something that is not correct or isn't the truth he has to be overthrown. But after that definition couldn't we defend that if Louis does something that isn't reasonable or he doesn't tell the complete truth, he is a human after all and that happens to everyone. So while a ruler, Louis isn't allowed to be human?
Nice, careful treatment of the syllogism. This is some of the clearest thinking you've done in ToK. After you take everything apart, then in the last few sentences you have to weigh it all and answer the question: to what extent is the syllogism sound.
ReplyDelete