Political Philosophy Essay Research Paper Political philosophys

Political Philosophy Essay, Research Paper

Political philosophy.s are the theories and ideas of those who believe that

they have an answer to the questions that politics raise in society. The

questions that these political philosophers set out to answer range from

describing what the state of nature is to what type of regimes are necessary to

tame and organize the nature of man. The ideas that they come up with are not

all that original. Plato, an early political philosopher and student of

Socrates, set out to come up with a society that would function properly. His

ideal society would consist of rulers, guardians, and the masses. All of which

are molded at a young age to play a societal role in order to contribute to the

betterment of their social arena. Plato has gone down in history as one of the

better political philosophers to ever live, and arguably the best. While looking

at what a society needs, he was able to recognize the needs of a society as well

as the needs of the individual. He # humbled the ego of man, when he

acknowledged that one individual could not survive on his own and that all

people are dependent on others to survive. His idea of an organized community

has been the focus of many political philosophy debates and has been a stepping

stone from which many philosophers have created their own ideal social

environment. Though their theories may not be identical to Plato.s, signs of

his structures are definitely evident. Thomas Hobbes, a political philosopher in

the seventeenth century, had many theories and ideas that seemed to have

coincided with Plato.s thoughts. Hobbes view of the state of nature was a very

primitive one. He felt that in the state of nature there was a war of every man

against every man to survive. In the natural state, justice was impossible,

because without set limits and structures, everyone has the rights to everything

and anarchy is almost inevitable. The only way to escape the unfortunate fate of

anarchy would be for everyone to agree to a covenant. In this covenant, all the

people would give up their rights and create a sovereign. The conditions of the

covenant was to give the sovereign full discretion in dealing with citizens. It

was up to the sovereign to protect the lives of the citizens. Quite ironically,

the sovereign also had the right to have any citizen # killed. Fortunately, the

citizens did not give up their right to fight back and were allowed to, usually

to no avail. As long as the sovereign was keeping the majority of citizens alive

and maintaining absolute power, the covenant would be considered successful and

a civil society would have been created. The covenant proposed in Leviathan, was

meant to help keep the common good of peace. As long as people weren.t killing

each other the common good was being reached and the monarchy was considered

successful. If people continued to kill each other the covenant of the absolute

sovereign would be looked upon as tyranny. This is clearly comparable to

Plato.s theory of a civil society. Plato pointed out how no one person could

survive by them self or without the help of a controlled civil society. Hobbes

takes Plato.s idea of men dependent upon other men, to extremes when he

reveals that men will kill each other in order to survive. WHY. Because other

people have what we need in order to maintain our lives, whether it be property,

food or etc. But why do we need a civil society. Hobbes, again is playing off

Plato.s acknowledgement of the selfishness of man. Because people are selfish

and are willing to do whatever it takes to live, they are going to violate

others in order to better themselves. Only in a # society where restrictions and

laws are placed upon people, will people begin to work with one another instead

of against one another in the effort to survive together and use the resources

and expertise that each person has to offer. Though Hobbes. way of governing

this communal society is a bit different than Plato, it still stems from the

same premise. The sovereign that Hobbes describes will be given complete

discretion and is trusted to act on what is best for the overall community.

Likewise, Plato.s rulers are trusted to bring the community together in the

hopes of making a strong and flourishing civil society. A definite difference

between the two rulers of Hobbes and Plato is that Plato.s ruler would be

naturally picked by the individual.s inherent wisdom. His ruler would be

someone who was born wise and meant to be in the ruling position. Hobbes.

ruler would be someone who the citizens picked and acknowledged as the absolute

sovereign in the societies covenant. Alexis De Tocqueville, a political

philosopher of the nineteenth century, is another good example of a philosopher

who.s ideas where simply branches of Plato.s philosophical roots. Coming

from an aristocracy i

Внимание, отключите Adblock

Вы посетили наш сайт со включенным блокировщиком рекламы!
Ссылка для скачивания станет доступной сразу после отключения Adblock!

Скачать