Francisco de Vitoria: On the American Indians
First Level Analysis
Francisco de Vitoria was a theologian who wrote during the time of the Spanish conquest of the Americas. In his political treatise entitled On The American Indians, he suggests the Spanish should question by what right they have subjected the “barbarians” to their rule. Indeed, de Vitoria is immensely focused on investigating the political power of the Spanish in the New World, and in this particular passage, he determines that the barbarians that the Spanish have conquered in the New World should not be ruled under the dominion of the Spanish. He likens these people to the Jews and the Arabs, noting that the Spanish recognize the sovereignty of these people, and they should likewise recognize the sovereignty of the barbarians, even though they are not Christians. These American Indians are the true masters of their land and their own private property, de Vitoria suggests, and Christendom does not have the right to remove their political and social autonomy in the name of God. Perhaps more to the point, he suggests that there is no reason to deny them right of ownership over goods and land, even though in his perception these people were less intelligent than the Spaniards.
Second Level Analysis
De Vitoria is clearly making an argument for the ethical treatment of the American Indians in this particular piece, but he also has to make an argument based on contentions that are agreed upon by all parties. He contests the idea that the barbarians are not intellectually sufficient to govern themselves, calling on Aristotle as a way to establish the idea of self-determination and self-rule for the American Indians. This particular quote is designed to present a conclusion—the logical conclusion that can be reached by reading the rest of the document, but which is also supported by the evidence given in this part of the conclusion. This is an incredibly progressive piece for its time; it argues for a humanistic application of Christian principles rather than an expansionist, militaristic application of Christianity. This particular quote is a concluding statement, which is then used as a skeleton from which the rest of the logic can be fleshed out for the reader. De Vitoria had to be careful with his conclusions and premises, ensuring that he did not stray far from the traditional Catholic thought in his argumentation.
Third Level Analysis
Francisco de Vitoria is writing about more than just the way the Spanish treated the American Indians; he is writing extensively about political discourse, interaction, and the role of the state. De Vitoria is clearly uncomfortable with the role the Spanish have played in the conquest of the Americas, and the enslavement of the locals seems to be of particular concern for him. Rather than making an argument that he knows will be swept under the rug—an argument for the equality of all humankind, for instance—he suggests that even though these people might be intellectually “lesser” than the Spanish, they still deserve the rights and treatment that conquistadors have given to people who are long-standing enemies of Christendom. He utilizes a humanist viewpoint, while still using many of the traditional expressions of Christian expansionist philosophy of the time; this is what makes this particular essay quite powerful and interesting for the time period.
Hugo Grotius: What War Is and What Right Is
First Level Analysis
Grotius suggests that there are a number of important rules and laws associated with life in any given state, but that the highest law is the Right of Nations. This right or law of nations is what governs the way that independent nations act in a time of peace or a time of war; these laws are sometimes seen as voluntary, but in many cases, countries are pressured into behaving in certain ways by other nations. Grotius suggests that the collective will of nations is what shapes the law of nations, and that while there might be nations that disagree with the global right or law of nations, there is significant pressure on an international scale to ensure that things like the fair treatment of prisoners of war are followed.
These rights and laws are more commonly associated with wartime rules and restrictions, which is what Grotius seems to focus on in this particular text. Grotius suggests that reprisals and damages for mistreatment and failure to follow these laws should be meted out—not because these rules are formally ensconced in law, but because they are generally agreed to be the case.
Second Level Analysis
This particular quote is taken from a discussion regarding what war is and what “right”—in the abstract philosophical sense—is. Grotius is heavily concerned with the development of a thorough understanding of international relations and international society, and some might even suggest that he is the first individual to really lay out the philosophy of international relationships, particularly as they pertain to disputes and disagreements in times of war. While this quote is a relatively short one, it is also a very interesting one, and it is quite dense: it provides a clear insight into one of the fundamental tenets of international relations to this day.
Although today the Geneva Convention exists, which governs the treatment of people during times of war, this is really only a piece of paper; it is violated regularly. Grotius suggests that the way that nations interact and the way that they treat combatants during times of war is more of a loose association of philosophical concepts than it is a true legal structure. It is particularly distinct from the civil laws and the laws that govern internal affairs within a nation.
Third Level Analysis
Grotius lived through a number of quite terrible disputes and wars during his lifetime, and he was fascinated by the problem of war and the ways that people and societies interacted during war. Natural law, he suggests, governs rationality; however, there are two systems that must be consulted when determining whether war can be considered just or purposeful. First, natural law must be consulted; next, the law of nations must be consulted, to ensure that the war that is to be conducted can be considered a just war within the international relations context of the time. The purpose of this part of the text as a whole is to investigate the nature of rights and the nature of war; determining the nature of just war is a primary concern for Grotius. Interestingly, Grotius is quite a trailblazer; though he bases his arguments on previous philosophical ideas like natural laws, his ideas regarding international relations are unique.
Thomas Hobbes: Leviathan, Part I.
First Level Analysis
In this particular quote, Hobbes suggests that those who have power are constantly seeking more power; the only way for these individuals who are in places of power to achieve more power, then, is to take power from others who also have power. Hobbes’ initial argument that man is constantly in competition with himself and others to ensure that he is the most powerful would initially suggest that the strong would eradicate the weak, leading to a kind of arms race for power; however, in this quote, Hobbes suggests that the weak are not usually the ones who make war.
In most cases, he writes, it is the powerful who are making war in an attempt to soothe jealousies and to take power from other people. Hobbes suggests that this continuous jealousy and search for power is a “posture of War,” which is one of the driving forces for civil and all other wars that plague humankind. It is independence and power that drives war forwards according to Hobbes, and this power is what forces leaders into the position of having to fight.
Second Level Analysis
In this particular part of Leviathan, Hobbes attempts to describe why the weak are not completely eradicated from society, and he tries to demonstrate how human nature can be seen as a driving force for war. Hobbes knows that mankind will never be happy with the power that he possesses, and he will constantly be seeking out more and better power; this new power, according to Hobbes, is what drives men’s appetite for war. Without the potential for new or expanded power, these men would not see the need to expand out into other territories.
Interestingly, this is also why, Hobbes suggests, the weak have survived: they have no power that the powerful can steal, so they do not pose any kind of threat or present any kind of interest to the powerful. The strong do naturally triumph over the weak, but they do not crush the weak and destroy them as it seems that Hobbes’ overall argument might suggest. The constant power struggle between men is very real, but Hobbes notes that men are all equal in their powers in some ways, and even the weak have the desire and the drive to kill the strong, and thus, the strong are forever seeking more power and security.
Third Level Analysis
This passage is part of Leviathan that asks questions about the interactions between people. Hobbes is not an optimist about the human condition: he suggests that people are, by and large, pretty terrible to each other and quite unwilling to give up any power. War, he suggests, is a direct result of the desire of many human beings to chase power, and the reality that strong men understand: even the weakest man can kill the strongest if the strong man is sleeping. Thus, power—and the pursuit of power—must be a constant, never-ending task that drives nations to war and destruction. In this section, Hobbes suggests that in war nothing is right or wrong; there is no injustice. Men are driven forward throughout their lives by the relentless need to pursue power, property, dominion, and commodities; however, Hobbes does not seem to see any harmonious end for man.
Thomas Hobbes: Leviathan, Part II
First Level Analysis
In the second part of Leviathan, particularly in this quote, Thomas Hobbes is focusing on the discussion of the establishment of a common power structure. The natural rights afforded to each man, in Hobbes’ opinion, give that man the right of authority over himself; however, when dealing with the fight for power, men sometimes have to abdicate their personal rights to another to remain safe. When safety and security are a concern, it is sometimes for the betterment of a person’s life that he would allow another person to bear his will, or act in his stead; this gives a sovereign the right to act in the name of another person or persons.
A sovereign has power only insofar as that sovereign’s people have made a covenant with each other; they have not made a covenant or agreement with a sovereign. The sovereign has absolute power over the people, and the people have very little—thus, it can be seen that the power lies with the sovereign and the covenant that the people have made between themselves.
Second Level Analysis
In this part of the document, Hobbes is discussing the formation of government and the expectation of the people based on the realities of government. Hobbes discusses the idea that men can make covenants with other men, with a sovereign, and with God; however, he suggests that the people are the one who choose the sovereign in certain ways, and the “consenting voices” of the people are what give shape to the rule that the sovereign has over the people as a whole. In Hobbes’ natural state, man has no leaders; each man is independently powerful, and man lives in a state of danger and discord. Once a sovereign is chosen, however, man is able to live in relative harmony because the constant threat of danger is reduced to a certain extent.
The sovereign represents all the people in his commonwealth; this is one of the ideas that Hobbes underscores time and again in his discussion of the establishment of government. The people must agree together to the rule of the sovereign; once in power, the sovereign has the ability to do whatever he would like to the people, and he is acting, by extension, through the will of the people. In the larger structure of the argument, this establishment of the meaning of power is important, as it allows Hobbes to move away from the natural state into the political state.
Third Level Analysis
Hobbes was writing at a time when there was great turmoil, and the foundational basis of monarchies and absolute leadership was being questioned. Hobbes had a negative view of human nature, but he also recognized that people are, for the most part, fundamentally free: without this freedom existing in government, Hobbes suggests, a sovereign cannot truly establish his leadership. Hobbes uses this discussion of the philosophical foundation of leadership to move towards a politicization of his philosophical discourse. Hobbes was writing at a time when society was changing fundamentally, and he and others felt the need to establish a philosophical basis for greater personal engagement in the political sphere.
