Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Q. Russell seldom takes refuge in fantasies yet his idea of the world government
seems to be quite farfetched. Elaborate from his works, especially Unpopular Essays.
(2010)
OR
Q. Uphold or refute Russells advocacy of World Government in his Unpopular
Essays, especially in view of the turn history' has recently taken. (2005)
OR
Q. Do you think Bertrand Russells proposal for the establishment of a world
government is desirable, or even tenable? (P.U. 2004)
OR
Q. Uphold or refute Russells advocacy of world Government in his Unpopular
.Essays, especially in view of the turn history has recently taken
(P.U. 2005)
Ans: Russell surely disproves the common established notion about philosophers, that,
they are absent-minded and always busy their heads in making speculations, when he
meditates on the possibilities regarding The Future of Mankind. He has done so,
because of his high sensitivity and deep concern towards human beings. He was called as
a traitor to his country because of his anti-war stand during the First World War. But his
only concern was towards humanity. Later he was awarded a Noble Prize for his
:contribution towards peace. In the words of Erich From
Bertrand Russell fights against the threatening slaughter- because he is a man who loves
.life
Russell discuses three possibilities about The Future of Mankind. According to him,
one is the complete extinction of human life on earth, the second is that human life will
be reduced to barbarism and the final is that there will be a world government that will
control all nations and countries. Among these the first possibility, which he describes, is
the complete extinction of all human beings. This might happen after the Second World
War in which the atomic weapons will be used. Russell deals it logically, for he says, if
still there will be some life after the end of that war, there would soon be another war, for
there would such diehards in the super powers, who would prefer the extermination of
.life, than surrendering to the victory of the other power
And if any man would miraculously be able to escape from death, he may consider
himself to be the emperor of the whole world, but his reign would not be long and his
:subjects would be only dead bodies and Russell says
With his death the uneasy episode of life will end, and the peaceful rocks will revolve
.unchanged, until the sun explodes
The second possibility, which Russell discusses, is the reversal of civilization to its
primitive conditions. Russell suggests if the Second World War fails to eliminate all signs
of life, still that destruction would take world to the age of barbarism. For in the war,
the major cities and industrial areas would be destroyed and the bacteriological warfare
would destroy crops and cause famine. Russell says there may be a few libraries and
laboratories and scientists. But the people might kill the remaining few scientists, in hope
:of some Golden Age, for
Extreme hopes are born of extreme misery and in such a world hopes could only be
.irrational
The third possibility, according to Russell, is the establishment of a universal government
all over the world. He discusses this idea in more than one ways in which it could occur.
The one is the victory of America, in the Second World War. Other is the victory of
Russia, or the world government, would emerge as a result of mutual agreement. The best
.among these ways is the idea of mutual agreement
Russells view of the world government has been criticized greatly. People have raised
arguments considering it as a Utopian ideal. Most of the people think that such an
alliance cannot be brought peacefully, for no nation would surrender her liberty. Russell
also admits that the chances of world government in a formal ways are extremely remote.
He thinks that a world government would not be formed voluntarily, but it would have to
.be brought about by force
Some object that there is no need of a world government, because the wars are a part of
human history and civilization but still humanity has survived from them. Wars create
heroism and are necessity of life, without which human beings would feel frustrated. To
refute this argument, Russell has given his logical reasoning, that the present condition of
cold war would certainly lead to a dreadful atomic war and eventually it would bring a
complete devastation. And now modern wars are very different from the wars in the past.
;Russell says
There lies before us, if we choose continual progress in happiness, knowledge and
?wisdom. Shall we instead choose death, because we cannot forget our quarrels
Then he visualizes the new world after the emergence of either of the two super powers
i.e. Russia and America, as a victor of the war. Russell perceives a secure peace
prevailing in the long run. Though there would be occasional murders and minor revolts
.but in such a state, any large scale rebellion would be out of question
Russell prefers America to control the world government and he has given many reasons
for his preference to America but his preference has no political or ideological basis, but
it totally depends on the probable condition of people under these states. The major
reason to prefer America is that, she respects the values of civilized life like freedom of
thought, freedom of inquiry and humaneness. But on the other hand, in communistic
countries like Russia, there is not liberty for individuals and the government has a strict
:hold on the common masses. Thus Russell says
Its only aim is to promote the mindless repetition of party slogans and to have the
.ability of shifting sides rapidly, so as to be always on the side {of received opinions
Moreover, there is considerably less orthodoxy in America than in Russia. There,
scientist, authors and philosophers can choose any subject regardless of state interest.
.While in Russia such things are also influenced by official views
Russell suggests yet another way to prevent a horrible war. In his opinion, America would
make an alliance with the British common wealth nations and with other European
nations who want to join them. All the military power, of these countries, and weapons
should be united and then they should declare war on the nation. In this way Russia might
also be agreed to join the alliance just by the threat of war. But still he does not leave the
.possibility of Russian refusal
In such an alliance, there should also be a legal check on the power of the leader, by other
nations, so there would not be a chance of corruption, which is sure to accompany
...Tower. In other cases, it would be such a combination of states
Where force is not a prerogative of private individuals or nations, but is exercised only
.by a neutral authority in accordance with rules laid down in advance
Among the many advantages, of a single world government is that the defence
expenditures of every nation would diminish and by this way human beings would be
.more happy than before
But a little earlier than this, Russells suggestions did not seem to be implemented to the
world. For, China has emerged, as a world power with nuclear weapons and it would
.certainly not like America as the only dominant nation to control both, East and West
But now, after, nine-eleven, once again Russells idea of the world government seems to
be possible, for, America and Britain has started to dominate the poor nations of the
.world, only in order to establish their hold on the world
However, Russells chief concern in all this discussion was his good will and sincere
concern towards peace and survival of mankind. We can surely conclude that he was a
.true optimist, pacifist and humanist
:Points to remember
.The effects of Second World War .1
.Three possibilities .2
.Complete extinction of all human beings .3
.The reversal of civilization to its primitive conditions .4
.Establishment of a universal government .5
.World government an utopian idea .6
.Two super powers of Russia and America .7
.Russells preference for American domination .8
Alliance with British common wealth .9
.Defence expenditures will be diminished .10
Three Possibilities
Russell believes that, as a result of the next world war, the world will face three
possibilities, one of which will definitely materialize. These three possibilities are: (1) the
end of human life, perhaps of all life on this earth; (2) a reversion to barbarism after a
disastrous fall in the human population of the earth; and (3) the establishment of a single
.world-government possessing a complete control over all the principal weapons of war
Barring major unforeseen events, there are three possible fates for the earth by the end of
the 20th Century: (1) human life, and possibly all life, exterminated; (2) return to the
stone age after a massive depopulation; (3) a single world government controlling
.weapons of mass destruction
The next world war wont finish off humanity, but the post-war arms race and further
instability might, through radioactivity. Although the last survivor may proclaim himself
universal Emperor, his reign will be brief and his subjects will all be corpses. With his
death the uneasy episode of life will end, and the peaceful rocks will revolve unchanged
until the sun explodes [pages 45-46]. Maybe this is not such a bad turn of events, but
people dont really believe that even if they say they would rather see the world end
than communism (or capitalism) take over. Such spoken sentiments are harmful, as they
.lessen our commitment to working to avoid the apocalypse
A single world government might arise if either the US or Russia wins the next war, or if
nations voluntarily agree to such a government. A common argument against a world
government is that the prospect is utopian, but those commentators are only considering
the voluntary means of achieving one. Russell concurs that as things now stand, the hopes
for agreement between the two main sides are negligible; therefore, it would have to be
.imposed by force [p. 47]
Why cant the world continue as before, with the occasional war? Technological
development in weaponry has brought a level of destruction such that soon, any major
world war would result in either extermination or depopulation and barbarism. (Russell
foresees that the USSR will soon have lots of nuclear weapons.) Nor can it be hoped that
.for some reason, within the existing nation-state structure, war itself will become history
Russell claims that a poll indicates that a majority of Americans support world
government but they do not understand the need for it to be established via force or the
threat of force. The side that prevails in an armed struggle will have an irresistible
monopoly of force, leading to a secure peace [p. 49]. The leaders of that society will be
rich and secure, allowing them to be generous to others. So a world government, of
American or Soviet origin, will be preferable to the current international anarchy [p.
50]. But an American-constructed world government will be better, because of the
freedoms that are valued in America. We can see what sort of civilisation the Soviets
would install by looking at what happened to the education system and the middle class
in Poland once it fell under Soviet domination. Within a generation, all independent
thought in Poland could be replaced with jejune communist orthodoxy, and this will also
be the global fate within a Soviet uni-polar world so a Russian victory in the bi-polar
struggle would be an appalling disaster [p. 51]. If America emerges as the victor,
European cultures will not be crushed, nor will be freedom of expression. Soviet control
of the press allows the ruling oligarchy to oppress the masses much more severely than in
.the US, so Soviet social inequalities worsen and harden
The third alternative future outlined above, that of world government, can almost be as
bad as the first two if it involves Soviet domination. The next step is for Britain and the
US to start a military unification, with invitations and inducements to other nations to
join. Once the alliance is large enough, any country that refused to join should be given
an ultimatum: either join or be named an outlaw. Presumably Russia would receive such
an ultimatum, and the war to follow provided it happens quickly enough should still
leave US power intact, and then the military unification can be completed. We could hope
that the ultimatum alone would work, that war would not be necessary but we cannot
.rely upon that
This all sounds gloomy, and it is, but the prospect of a world without wars also holds
great promise; for the first time in 6000 years: a weight will be lifted from the human
spirit, deep collective fears will be exorcised, and as fear diminishes we may hope that
cruelty also will grow less [p. 54]. Without war, poverty could be ended on a global
.scale within a generation [p. 55]
The global monopolization of force is a means, not an end; the end is to set up a system
of laws to govern international relations. If we succeed in establishing such a system, we
will enter a golden age; if we fail, we face utter disaster [p. 55].
Given that a third world war, erupting from the Cold War, was one of Russell's greatest
concerns, his prospects for the future dealt with the possibility of such a war (atomic, no
less) or some way to avoid such a war. If such a war were to occur, Russell supposed the
destruction of human life, and possibly all life, on the planet. Atomic bombs and their
after-effects (radiation clouds, disease, etc.) would decimate and/or eliminate all life.
Russell's second scenario is that the world would revert to a state of barbarism. This too
could result from a widespread atomic world war. The only solace is that such outcome
leaves open the possibility that humans could return to a civilized state. Russell compares
this possibility to the fall of Rome which was followed by a relatively more barbaric time
(notably the Dark Ages) but was followed by a Renaissance and eventually a more
technological and organized world.
Russell's third scenario is the unification of the world under one united power. Russell
adds that such a united power is the most preferable outcome (a more powerful and all-
encompassing authority than, say, the United Nations). Russell notes that as long as there
at least two supremely powerful states (Soviet Union and United States), the threat of an
atomic world war is always possible. And as technology increases, the destructive power
of such a war increases. In other words, the more technologically advanced the world
becomes, the more destructive our wars become; therefore, Russell believed that a unified
world state becomes more and more necessary in order to avoid such a catastrophic war.
Russell hoped that a united world state could be achieved by negotiation and/or the threat
of force but he feared that force would be necessary. He also clearly preferred an
American victory rather than a Russian victory - whether that be the result of diplomatic
relations or the result of a war. He even added that if America were communist and
Russia were capitalist, he would still prefer an American victory because there was more
intellectual and social freedom in America.
Although a united world state does have problems, Russell believes that under such a
state, the threat of war will be lessened or eliminated, leaving humans to put more
attention on human happiness. Although Russell presents gloomy potentials for the
future, he believes that an immeasurably good outcome can emerge from the third
scenario:
What the world most needs is effective laws to control international relations. The first
and most difficult step in the creation of such law is the establishment of adequate
sanctions, and this is only possible through the creation of a single armed force in control
of the whole world. Homework Help > Bertrand Russell
like 2 dislike 0
1 Answer
Russell's article assesses where the world stands in the 1950s. He outlines three distinct
possibilities for the world. The first is total nuclear obliteration, while the second is a
devolution into barbarism. The third option would be a dominance of one form of
government. Given the Cold War paradigm in which Russell operated, this would mean a
United States victory or a triumph of the Soviet Union.
In Russell's mind, "The Future of Mankind" results in forging diplomatic and military
alliances with nations in a cooperative manner. Russell believes that if nations are able to
form broad based alliances through both diplomatic and financial inducements, there is a
decreased likelihood of rogue nations threatening the fragile balance of life on the planet.
Russell believes in this collaborative venture as the first phase of ensuring a healthy
future. The second step is being able to use the power of transformation to manipulate
endeavors that make life better for all. In Russell's mind, the forging of alliances and the
reduction in war can lead to a transformative vision where all of the world's problems can
be actively combated:
Unless we can cope with the problem of abolishing- war, there is no reason whatever to
rejoice in laborsaving technique, but quite the reverse. On the other hand, if the danger of
war were removed, scientific technique could at last be used to promote human
happiness. There is no longer any technical reason for the persistence of poverty, even in
such densely populated countries as India and China. If war no longer occupied men's
thoughts and energies, we could, within a generation, put an end to all serious poverty
throughout the world.
If "law, rather than private force" can ensure that liberty is protected and individuals are
able to enjoy the maximum pursuit of liberty in their own worlds, there is a greater
chance for the future of mankind to find happiness and be free from destruction.
Russell's writing in the speech puts him in a uniquely different position amongst other
philosophers. His humanism distinguishes him from the leftist Marxist philosophers who
found that social and material conditions precluded any hope of collaboration. His
pacifism distinguished him from the nationalist thinkers who felt that exceptionalism
should guide thought and action. Russell's ideas in the essay put him as the skeptic of
absolutist dogma and one whose embrace of progressivism and social justice embodied
the essence of hopeful transformation.
LOGICAL ATOMISM
The theory of logical atomism is a crucial tool in Russells philosophical method. Logical
atomism contends that, through rigorous and exacting analysis, languagelike physical
mattercan be broken down into smaller constituent parts. When a sentence can be
broken down no further, we are left with its logical atoms. By examining the atoms of a
given statement, we expose its underlying assumptions and can then better judge its truth
or validity.
Take, for example, the following sentence: The King of America is bald. Even this
deceptively simple sentence can be broken down into three logical components:
We know, of course, that there is no King of America. Thus the first assumption, or atom,
is false. The complete statement The King of America is bald is untrue, but it isnt
properly false because the opposite isnt true either. The King of America has hair is
just as untrue as the original statement, because it continues to assume that there is, in
fact, a King of America. If the sentence is neither true nor false, what kind of claim on the
truth can it make? Philosophers have debated whether the sentence, in fact, has any
meaning at all. What is clear is that applying the concepts of logical atomism to language
reveals the complexity of the concepts truth and validity.
Russells theory offers a method for understanding statements that include definite
descriptions. A definite description is a word, name, or phrase that denotes a particular,
individual object. That chair, Bill Clinton, and Malaysia are all examples of definite
descriptions. The theory of descriptions was created to deal with sentences such as The
King of America is bald, where the object to which the definite description refers is
ambiguous or nonexistent. Russell calls these expressions incomplete symbols. Russell
showed how these statements can be broken down into their logical atoms, as
demonstrated in the previous section. A sentence involving definite descriptions is, in
fact, just a shorthand notation for a series of claims. The true, logical form of the
statement is obscured by the grammatical form. Thus, application of the theory allows
philosophers and linguists to expose the logical structures hidden in ordinary language
and, it is hoped, to avoid ambiguity and paradox when making claims of their own.
SET THEORY
The ability to define the world in terms of sets is crucial to Russells project of logicism,
or the attempt to reduce all mathematics to formal logic. A set is defined as a collection of
objects, called members or elements. We can speak of the set of all teaspoons in the
world, the set of all letters in the alphabet, or the set of all Americans. We can also define
a set negatively, as in the set of all things that are not teaspoons. This set would include
pencils, cell phones, kangaroos, China, and anything else thats not a teaspoon. Sets can
have subsets (e.g., the set of all Californians is a subset of the set of all Americans) and
can be added and subtracted from one another. In early set theory, any collection of
objects could properly be called a set.
Set theory was invented by Gottlob Frege at the end of the nineteenth century and has
become a major foundation of modern mathematical thought. The paradox discovered by
Bertrand Russell in the early twentieth century, however, led to a major reconsideration
of its founding principles. Russells Paradox showed that allowing any collection of
objects to be termed a set sometimes creates logically impossible situationsa fact that
threatens to undermine Russells greater, logicist project.
RUSSELLS PARADOX
Russells Paradox, which Russell discovered in 1901, reveals a problem in set theory as it
had existed up to that point. The paradox in its true form is very abstract and somewhat
difficult to graspit concerns the set of all sets that are not members of themselves. To
understand what that refers to, consider the example of the set containing all the
teaspoons that have ever existed. This set is not a member of itself, because the set of all
teaspoons is not itself a teaspoon. Other sets may, in fact, be members of themselves. The
set of everything that is not a teaspoon does contain itself because the set is not a
teaspoon. The paradox arises if you try to consider the set of all the sets that are not
members of themselves. This metaset would include the set of all teaspoons, the set of all
forks, the set of all lobsters, and many other sets. Russell poses the question of whether
that set includes itself. Because it is defined as the set of all sets that are not members of
themselves, it must include itself because by definition it does not include itself. But if it
includes itself, by definition it must not include itself. The definition of this set
contradicts itself.
Many people have found this paradox difficult to fathom, so in philosophy textbooks it is
often taught by analogy with other paradoxes that are similar but less abstract. One of the
most famous of these is the barber paradox. In a certain town, there is a barber who
shaves the men who do not shave themselves. The paradox arises when we consider
whether the barber shaves himself. On one hand, he cant shave himself because hes the
barber, and the barber only shaves men who dont shave themselves. But if he doesnt
shave himself, he must shave himself, because he shaves all the men who dont shave
themselves. This paradox resembles Russells in that the way the set is defined makes it
impossible to say whether a certain thing belongs to it or not.
Russells Paradox is significant because it exposes a flaw in set theory. If any collection
of objects can be called a set, then certain situations arise that are logically impossible.
Paradoxical situations such as that referred to in the paradox threaten the entire logicist
project. Russell argued for a stricter version of set theory, in which only certain
collections can officially be called sets. These sets would have to satisfy certain axioms to
avoid impossible or contradictory scenarios. Set theory before Russell is generally called
nave set theory, while post-Russell set theory is termed axiomatic set theory.