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 in France, De Tocqueville went to America to study the
prison system. Instead of following through with this study, he found himself
intrigued with the political # system that occupied America. His work, Democracy
in America, became a political comparison between Aristocracy and Democracy.
Instead of looking at the behavior of people in the primitive state of nature,
like Plato and Hobbes, he focused on the present and what would be the best
political structure for the societies that people were currently in. This way of
building his political beliefs was different than Plato?s and Hobbes? way of
coming up with their theories, but was still effective in helping him analyze
what type of societal structure would most effectively contribute to the common
good of each communities individuals. Being from France, De Tocqueville was
intrigued by the amount of political freedom that all people, from the lowest to
the highest social classes were entitled to. It amazed him how the United States
could manage to maintain such a strong political system without having a central
dominating party that had the final say in what laws were passed. Much to his
surprise, people of even the lowest financial class were able to give an opinion
as to what rules and laws the government should pass. This was evident in the
U.S. judicial system, were every person was capable of being on a jury and
deciding the fate of another person. The person on trial was not simply heard by
a single superior being, but instead was given the chance to convey his side of
the case to # a jury of many people. This gave the plaintiff an equal shot at
justice despite what his social status may be. Because the jury was randomly
selected amongst all citizens, from all social statures. This judicial system
protected the rights of the individuals and maintained the nations declaration
of the common good. The jury that is selected would be comparable to Plato?s
guardians, who?s job was to defend what the founders had established.
Likewise, the jury?s job is to make sure that everyone gets a fair shot at
justice, a right that America?s founders set out to uphold. Among other
things, De Tocqueville was dumb founded by the ease with which people were able
to voice their opinions. And, despite their opinions, people seemed more willing
to follow the rules and laws that the nation set, even if the weren?t in favor
of them. He came to the conclusion that, ?…as long as the majority is still
undecided, discussion is carried on, but as soon as its decision is irrevocably
pronounced, every one is silent, and the friends as well as the opponents of the
measure unite in assenting to its propriety?(De Tocqueville, Princeton
Readings of Political Thought,p.416). Because decisions such as, what laws and
rules to pass, are decided by a majority after weighing the pros and cons,
people are more willing to yield to the ruling because it has been fairly #
analyzed and presented by both sides, not just by a monarch with absolute power
and say. The absence of a monarch in America was to assure that the goal of the
common good would never be endangered by injustice. The way that America handles
it?s citizens, allows for amendments to laws and an equal chance for everyone
to succeed, regardless of individual?s preceding family histories. Here we are
able to see another similarity to Plato?s Republic when De Tocqueville directs
his attention to how the people of America work together to build a strong
community, instead of fighting each other to survive, they are aware of their
dependency upon others. One person cannot pass a law in America, a majority vote
is needed in order to pass laws that are in the best interest of the country as
a whole, not just an individual. De Tocqueville, explored the common good of
America and was able to locate the precise reasoning as to why the United
States? political system could continue to progress in such a democratic
framework without any major outbursts of anarchy. After dissecting the political
system and people of the country, his conclusion became clear. People in the
United States have come from many different origins and have come together in
search of a common good. The common good that became the foundation of America
was independence, that # could only be fully found in a democratic society. Many
of the people that came to the United States, came from places of oppression and
monarchal rule and were deathly afraid of any monarchal reoccurrence. With the
founding fathers of the United States all in agreement that they wanted a secure
system that would prohibit any type of monarchy, the common good of equality and
freedom for all citizens came into play. This agreement, though quite different
in content, was equivalent to the covenant that Hobbes? society abided by, in
that it was an agreement that everyone honored. What baffled De Tocqueville, was
why such a democratic configuration wouldn?t be feasible in Europe. In his
comparison study he confronted the reasons as to why the specific democratic
system of America was viable there, but not in his native Europe. The
justification that he came up with is actually quite interesting. The
aristocratic ways of Europe have been so engraved in their political system,
that any attempt at complete Democracy would cause more conflicts than
compliments to their social arena. People in Europe are enthralled by their past
ancestry and culture. Because these people are leading lives with such social
segregation, any glimpse of complete equality would lead to more upheavals than
celebrations. Bringing people of # lower classes and higher classes to a point
where they are no longer separated by financial or family restraints would cause
more chaos on the society. With people holding their ancestry so close to their
hearts, feelings of spite and harshness are bound to deliver a mass anarchy,
that would outweigh the societal unity that would normally be expected with the
budding of equality and independence. Democracy would not be in the interest of
the European countries because of the nature of their citizens, and the strong
traditional feelings that they hold. The common good of Europe is not
necessarily the same as America?s. De Tocqueville deducted an answer that
seemed to be pretty accurate when looking at the two government structures. He
was very practical when he decided to base his social ideals on the present
situations of people, instead of trying to start from the very primitive and
natural stages of humans. Though this aspect of his research is different than
Plato?s and Hobbes?, it still allowed him to come up with a pretty similar
solution to the two preceding philosophers. De Tocqueville?s way of looking at
society allowed him to see that though a Democracy may be the best way for
America to reach it?s common good, a Democracy may not be as efficient when
dealing with the different communities of Europe. Karl Marx, a political
philosopher from the nineteenth # century, is another very well known
philosopher. Just like Plato, Hobbes and De Tocqueville, Marx had a vision of
how a community that is segregated by social classes could possibly take up a
new governmental structure that would best help all the citizens of the society,
not just the aristocracies of the area. His ideal society would be
?classless?. Marx saw society?s structure to be a result of history, that
would eventually smooth it?s way out. The beginning means to his plan of the
?classless? society would commence when a movement towards ending capitalism
took effect. He saw capitalism as a way in which the bourgeoisie exploited their
workers in order to increase the value of their productions. Unfortunately for
capitalism, it had a lethal and self-destructive characteristic that would bring
an end to it. This ruinous trait was it?s voracious need to compete and
dominate the production market. The competition of the producers to produce more
and in turn exploit their workers more, would eventually cause some of the
producers to go out of business. With less competition there would be more lower
level and oppressed proletarians. The effect of having more proletarians than
middle class citizens changed the society from being a capitalist community to a
community of socialism. Eventually, this ever changing society would change from
socialist environment # to a ?classless? society. Marx held firmly that
industrialism would be the key to the ?classless? society. He calculated
that more machines bearing the brunt of production would liberate humans from
the harsh labor that they had endured. Because machines can produce more in a
shorter period of time than humans, he speculated that their would be enough
produce to allow everyone to live a generous life. Hence, everyone would have an
equal means to a good life and the society would turn from an aristocracy to a
?classless? society. This ?classless? atmosphere would be a communist
environment where no one person owns land, but instead the property and goods
produced on property would be custody of the state, not the individuals of the
state. Karl Marx?s theory of the state being the owner of all property, in a
sense, put all people in the state on an equal level. Because the state owned
all the produce and property, they were able to distribute the goods to all the
citizens. This would reassure that all citizens well-beings were being met, thus
the common good would be attained. Because of Marx?s sensitivity towards the
proletariat class and their needs, as well as the needs of the middle class, his
theories were merely concepts that would help meet the common good # of the
state as a whole, not just the elite. Marx?s mentality is what puts him in the
same class as Plato, Hobbes and De Tocqueville. He sought a means towards
improving the community; communism was the final concept he came up with, that
he felt could enhance the living styles of all the people within his social
arena. The ideas of Hobbes, De Tocqueville and Marx were all ways of making the
means meet with an end. They all sought to provide a communal environment where
all citizens could live without bias?. Though Hobbes sought a monarchy, with
one sovereign to lead the state, and De Tocqueville discovered that what is good
for one state is not necessarily good for another and Marx founded a communist
government he thought would best work for his state; doesn?t mean that they
did not all share a common goal. It is obvious through their thoughts and words
that each of these philosophers focused an immense amount of their attention
towards forming the perfect political structures to manage the citizens of their
states with. All three of them shared the same goal, their goal was to seek out
the finest solutions that would resolve the dilemmas that their states faced,
they were all on a quest for the common good. The only thing that separates
these writers is the means they used, in an attempt to satisfy the end…the #
common good. Plato was the earliest of all the presented philosophers. His ideas
and aspirations were all based on the knowledge that he acquired from his
teacher, Socrates, and his own experiences. His thoughts of pursuing a common
good for a community of people, not just for an individual, were foundational
thoughts that had a drastic carry through on political philosophers that would
follow. Hobbes, De Tocqueville and Marx have had noteworthy effects on the
political systems that have emerged; but I can say with confidence, that at the
root of their philosophical writings, is the seedling that Plato first planted.