Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Politics in today life
Social contract theory outlines
Social contract theory outlines
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Politics in today life
Explaining Political Philosophy
Political philosophy, or political theory, as it is also known, is
about human condition, or, what humans are like. There are roughly
four main kinds of political philosophy around today-Libertarianism,
Socialism, Liberalism and Communitarianism. Political theory is an
attempt to understand people, what we are like as individuals, what
society and the state are like, and how we as humans, the state and
society all interact with one and other.
A social contract theory is the method of justifying political
principles or arrangements by appeal to the agreement that would be
made among suitably situated rational, free, and equal persons. For
some philosophers this contract is reality, whereas for others it is
regarded as imaginary. The kinds of people that are in the state of
nature deter the kind of civil society and state we have.
Plato believed that people hadn't developed their reasoning
facilities, and therefore they need to be led. Plato calls these
leaders "philosopher-kings". Plato believes that conflicting interests
of different parts of society can be harmonized. The best, rational
and righteous, political order, which he proposes, leads to a
harmonious unity of society and allows each of its parts to flourish,
but not at the expense of others. The theoretical design and practical
implementation of such order, he argues, are impossible without
virtue. A group of elite theorists developed Plato's idea of the
"philosopher-kings" and the ordinary folk in the nineteenth and
twentieth centuries. Three of these theorists, Vilfredo Pareto,
Geatano Mosca, and Robert Michels, all argued that for ei...
... middle of paper ...
...e
Arts and Science" (1750), the "Discourse on Inequality" (1754), and
the "Social Contract" (1762). Rousseau argues that people are
naturally strong; he envisages the state of nature as a kind of
paradise. Individuals would not be bound to each other by any kinds of
ties; instead they would be able to wander the forests content with
meeting others occasionally to procreate. Rousseau believed that in
the state of nature people would have the important attribute of
self-love. This self-love takes up two forms, the first, "amour de
soi-meme" (roughly translated as self-confidence), and the second
"amour propre" (translated as vanity). In Rousseau's state of nature
self-confidence would be required, for example to go out hunting for
deer, and as society develops people naturally begin to compare
themselves with others.
Machiavelli and Rousseau, both significant philosophers, had distinctive views on human nature and the relationship between the government and the governed. Their ideas were radical at the time and remain influential in government today. Their views on human nature and government had some common points and some ideas that differed.
Plato's philosophy of government sees the State as a larger version of the individual, and the soul of an individual is comprised of three parts. Plato states that these three parts include the appetite, the spirit, and reason (167), and these parts have goals and desires that pertain only to them. For example, reason finds fulfillment in the study ...
However that was not the only thing that could be seen clearly through this conversation he wrote. Also in bedded in this dialogue was Socrates teachings. Plato expresses Socrates habits of searching “every corner of the city,” to find answers to his unending questions. The Republic allows the reader to see how Plato was able to use his knowledge to extend the discussion of Western Political Thought. As tradition follows, Plato’s student Aristotle also learned and developed what his tutor taught him. Aristotle was the third of the most infamous philosophers who _____. His ideas were captured in a collection of essays titled Politics. However, this time he would even question the original Greek belief that Democracy was the best way to govern correctly and fairly. Just as Plato believed Aristotle knew that tyranny ruled through, “private interest” as he
How an individual frames oneself determines how the audience will view one. During the 2016 presidential debates, speeches, and other media airings of conservative presidential candidates, people who run for president get the chance to frame themselves in the way they want and the audience then unconsciously places its own narratives on them. Donald Trump is one of the Republican presidential candidates running in the election of 2016 and he is one to use framing as a strategy to gain recognition among the other presidential candidates. How does Trump frame himself in order to gain so much popularity? George Lakoff, the author of the book titled The Political Mind, is a cognitive scientist who talks about how issues are framed, and how that
In Chapter 4 of Political Thinking; the Perennial Questions, Tinder raises the question of whether social order can be maintained without power. The argument of whether humans are estranged or naturally good plays a large part in deciding this question. Tinder hits on two major topics before coming to his ultimate decision. The first is that human nature can be linked to reason as both a cognitive and a moral tool that can be used to live without a specific source of power. In other words, people with a strong sense of morality can suffice without the need of an organized government. It is then argued that the concept of natural occurring interests between a society successfully taps into the fear that social order is spontaneous, disregarding whether people are generally good or bad. The example of free enterprise is given, regarding humans as selfish and materialistic. With this an idea for government to protect property and create stability in currency arose while trying not to encroach on personal freedoms.
In Huemer’s The Problem Of Political Authority an argument is made against the idea of a political authority. The idea in this argument is that the government has certain rights that do not pertain to the citizens as well. The purpose of this paper is to show that Huemer’s argument fails by arguing a consent-based response to Huemer’s criticisms, which shows that the government does not actually violate a “social contract” made with society. The idea behind this is that we have actually consented to the government’s authority in several ways without being explicit.
The Republic is the most important dialogue within Plato's teaching of politics. It deals with the soul, which, as we know from the beginning, at the level where one must make choices and decide what one wants to become in this life, and it describes justice as the ultimate form of human, and the ideal one should strive for both in life and in state. Justice as understood by Plato is not merely a social virtue, having only to do with relationship between people, but virtue that makes it possible for one to build their own regime and reach happiness.
Plato views the democratic state as a city “full of freedom and freedom of speech[,]” where its citizens “have the license to do [whatever they] want” and the right to self-determine. Plato however, sees this insatiable desire for freedom at the expense of neglecting everything else as the downfall of democracy. To clarify, a society that is staunchly protective of its equality and freedom will be particularly sensitive towards any oppositions that seem to limit them, to the point where it actively attempts to “avoid [obeying the law and] having any master at all.” Thus, “unless the rulers are very pliable and provide plenty of that freedom, they are punished by the city and accused of being oligarchs.” Since those in power fear the accusations of those being ruled, they become docile and submissive. On the other hand, those who are ruled are encouraged by their rulers’ meekness and, convinced of their inherent right to freedom, begin to behave as their own rulers. Thus, this blind chase for unconditional freedom will propagate disorder across the society, and eventually cause the people to see “anarchy [as] freedom, extravagance [as] magnificence, and shamelessness [as]
Rousseau’s political theory revolves around a central idea that in order to deal with moral or political inequality (“social” inequality), man must move out of the state of nature and establish a social contract, “a form of association which defends and protects… the person and goods of each associate, and by the means of which each one, while uniting with all, nevertheless obeys only himself and remains as free as before” (Rousseau 432). Although Rousseau’s plan pledges to protect individual liberty, the plan rests on the legislation of the “general will” and the successful unity of a “body politic,” both of which are vaguely defined and become too concerned with state interest.
Throughout The Republic, Plato constructs an ideal community in the hopes of ultimately finding a just man. However, because Plato’s tenets focus almost exclusively on the community as a whole rather than the individual, he neglects to find a just man. For example, through Socrates, Plato comments, “our aim in founding the
Aristotle, unlike Plato, is not concerned with perfecting society. Rather than produce a blueprint for the perfect society, Aristotle suggested, in his work, The Politics, that the society itself should reach for the best possible system that could be attained .This contradicts Plato’s theory of one ruling class controlling the political power and all decisions that affect the entire society. Plato and Aristotle alike were two men who had ideas on ways to improve existing
Political theories abound, considering many parts of society and the body politic. John Locke was one of the first to expound on the origins of property, and sixty-six years later Jean-Jacques Rousseau would also address the issues of property and inequality. According to Locke and Rousseau, the social contract is sanctioned by formal equalities yet creates or gives way to inequalities after it is formed. Though Locke would argue that inequalities in the private sphere don’t fall under the jurisdiction of the government, Rousseau would say justice gets deformed through inequality. Understanding how both equality and inequality can be present under the terms of the social contract is important because we cannot understand how to minimize inequalities if we do not first understand how they originated (origin). Inequality and equality can coexist under the terms of the social contract because the contract was formed under the influence of specious reasons with only an illusion of political equality.
In conclusion, Plato draws all the elements of his perfect city-state and started it by the kings. Those kings have to understand the good, because all the achievements of society will rely on them. Therefore all the evidence and Plato’s information of philosopher king will be useful for uniting people.
He thought that the election of the people was unfair justice. Plato had some of the same beliefs. He believed that government should only have rulers who had the intelligence and education appropriate for the matter. His thoughts were that a job should be done only by those who are best suited for it. To him, aristocracy was a perfect form of government.
... state. In Plato's argument for the ideal state, the fundamental bonds which hold together his republic are unity and harmony. He explains how the just state is held together by the unity of each individual in each social class, and harmony between all three social classes. Plato explains how the ideal state must have citizens who are united in their goals. It is not the happiness of the individual but rather the happiness of the whole which keeps the just state ideal. At the same time, Plato argues that there must be harmony within the individual souls which make up the state. The lack of unity and harmony leads to despotism through anarchy which eventually arises within a democracy. Plato makes a clear argument, through The Republic, that without the unity and harmony of the individual and the state there can be no order and therefore there can be no ideal state.