Hi everyone. Welcome to part two of Revolutionary Ideas, an introduction to legal and political philosophy. Some of you may have already taken part one. That's great. But you don't need to have taken part one in order to do part two of the course. If your curious about what's covered in part one, I encourage you to either enroll in part one, or watch the part one recap video available on the page for this course. Political institute Institutions and legal systems are the products of human minds. The United States government was, at least in broad outlines, designed by a group of men sitting in a room in Philadelphia just a few miles from here in the summer of 1787. 39 men signed the Constitution that laid the foundation for the U.S. government. 12 of them were younger than I am today. Jonathan Dayton was 27. Richard Dobbs Spaight was 29, John Francis Mercer was 28. With a few exceptions, they were not geniuses and political experts. They were mostly ordinary men distinguished by their wealth, political connections or military service. The founders of the United States government had their own values, things they cared about, things they wanted the government to embody or to achieve. And they looked to legal and political philosophers, Plato, Cicero, Locke, Hume, Rousseau, Montesquieu, to help them craft the architecture of the United States. In this course, we'll continue this tradition, taking the political institutions and political systems around us, not as fixed and unquestionable But as things to evaluate and, if necessary, to change. This is a class about how our ideals and values do, and should, shape our political systems. This is a class not simply about history or any one country, but rather about the philosophical views that shape our ideas about governance and governments. Philosophy can aid us in this task by helping us to think about the political values that do and should matter to us, to identify where there might be problems with the institutions we have and to think about how various changes to our institution Might help address those problems or better achieve those values. [MUSIC] Philosophy might seem abstract but our philosophical commitments have concrete and sometimes even brutal consequences. [MUSIC] I became interested in the philosophy behind political institutions at a young age. After finding out the story of my grand father's death and the circumstances of my father's departure from Cuba. In 1962, shortly after the Cuban revolution, my grandfather was sentenced to death and executed. He was executed, but one might also argue that he was murdered. The difference lies with one's views about the moral standing of the state in general and of the particular government that executed him. What should the state be allowed to do? That's a question that I've been interested in for most of my life, and the foundational question of this course. Part one of the course considers some of the most prominent answers to what we might take to be the foundational question of legal and political philosophy, why should we even have a state? Why should we have legal and political institutions at all? In part two of the course, we will consider a number of more practical questions addressed by legal and political philosophy. In the first unit, we consider the question of political community. How should we define our political community? What is the appropriate size and basis of political community? Should we be allowed to change what political community we are a part of? If so how easily? Should we have borders? How open or fluid should they be? In the second unit, we will consider a question that arises once we have defined our political community. How should we make law and policy? Who should get a say? Should we create laws through representatives rather than directly? Should representatives, if we're going to have them, should they be elected or randomly selected through a lottery? If we have elections, should all of our votes count equally? We'll consider these questions and others. In the third unit of the course, we'll consider the role of constitutions. Should we have a constitution. If so, why? Why might we want one? What kinds of things should be in it? How should future generations use it? And interpret it? How hard should it be to amend it? Finally, in the fourth unit of part two, we'll consider issues of crime and punishment. What should be illegal? What should happen to people who break the law? Should we punish them? How, why? Should we troubled if the disproportionate number of people who are punished are of a certain race, economic class, or mental health status? What's the point of putting people in prison? Are there alternatives to prison? In engaging these questions we'll read the work of classic and contemporary philosophers and theorists including people such as David Hume, Hugo Grotius, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, HLA Heart Kwame Anthony Appiah, Andrew Rehfeld, John Hart Ely, Ronald Dworkin, Michelle Alexander, Angela Davis, and others. We'll read, explore, and discuss the work of these classic and contemporary philosophers. And we will also draw on arguments from law, economics, psychology, and political science. To help you work through these ideas, there will be weekly reflection questions and discussion forums. As an on-demand course, there are no due dates and you can access all of the material from the day you begin. Do try your best to get through the material in a timely fashion, but don't get discouraged if you take a break from the course. You can always return and complete the remaining sections at a later date. My aim in the class is not to convince you of any one way of looking at politics or political institutions, but to help you think carefully and critically about the legal and political world around you. I hope you'll join me. [MUSIC]
