The proper relationship between the individual's interests and the common good is a delicate balancing act that political philosophers such as Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and Sophocles have tried to define. For philosophers such as Socrates and Plato, the common good trumps the individual interest when those interests interfere with what they believe is right for society as a whole. For others like Aristotle and Locke, a consensus on what the common good is must be defined within the reality that individual interests exists; meaning, they cannot be completely discarded for the good of society. I believe that in a free society, where the common good to doesn't have to be forced upon its citizens, the common good should impose upon the individual's interest only as much as citizens will allow without feeling such impositions are unreasonable restrictions on their lives. The reason that unreasonable restrictions on the individual's interests cannot be entirely ignored is that human nature doesn't allow for such selflessness. Since that is so, citizens will not allow for common good to exist in a society if it as the expense of their interests. However, small restrictions can be readily accepted it they believe that such impositions actually affords them the safety and opportunity to nurture their interests. For example, the property owner will gladly pay taxes to the government for the common good if they believe that the government will protect them those who would steal their land. In Aristotle's critic of Plato, Aristotle points out that humans cannot learn what the common good and what their proper role in society is without having individual interests. For example, Aristotle pokes holes in Plato's position that philosophers should not possess personal property as irrational as it does not take into consideration that property ownership "contributes to the overall rational structure of society and thus to people's happiness," which is a requirement before the common good can be realized. Aristotle's criticism of Plato hinges on the presupposition that personal happiness must exist before civic virtue can. Accordingly, family, friendship, and personal property are "needed in order to enable individuals to feel that their lives have value, and both are necessary dimensions of a well-organized polis that secures a sense of communal solidarity among diverse people" (DeLue 54). Contrastingly, Plato's "Republic" gives little or no consideration to the individuals interests. Plato believes that the republic trumps all, and basic human interests such as the desire to improve one's station in life is disregarded as unnatural or even the desire not to be lied to are not even worthy of consideration.
Plato firmly believed that only a select few should rule. This idea stems from his view that people are unequal in essence, as some truly enlightened individuals are able to understand justice and good whereas others could only see the suggestion of the phenomenas. He asserted that many people were
What is the Common Good for All Americans? What was the common good for all Americans in 1776? Thomas Paine, a political activist during America’s struggle for independence from England, argues in Common Sense, a pamphlet published in the Pennsylvania Magazine, with the American colonists, demanding a revolt against the British crown (Thomas Paine). He passionately believes that the answer to the “.benefit of all people in [American] society” (Thomas Paine) will result from the freedom of oppression for the thirteen American colonies. Common Sense, “the most incendiary and popular pamphlet of the entire revolutionary era”, remains noted by historians as one of the most influential pieces of literature during the era of the American Revolution that opened the gates to the ratification of the Declaration of Independence that 56 delegates signed on July 4, 1776, granting America’s freedoms from England (Thomas Paine).
The dangers of faction can somewhat outweigh the good. The framers of the American Constitution feared the power that could possibly come about by organized interest groups. Madison wrote "The public good is disregarded in the conflict of rival factions citizens who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community." However, the framers believed that interest groups thrived because of freedom, the same privilege that Americans utilize to express their views. Madison saw direct democracy as a danger to individual rights and advocated a representative democracy to protect individual liberty, and the general public from the effects of such inequality in society. Madison says "A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischief's of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."
Examining the texts of Aristotle’s “Nicomachean Ethics” and “Politics” side by side, one is bound to find parallels between his reasoning with regard to the individual and to the state. In “Nicomachean Ethics” Aristotle discusses happiness, virtue, and the good life on an individual level and lays out necessary provisions for the good life of a person. He maintains that virtue is a necessary element of happiness: a man will be happy if he has virtues of justice, courage, and temperance, each constituting a balance between the extremes. But this requirement of virtue for the happy life goes beyond the individual level, as we see it in “Politics”. There, Aristotle claims that man is by nature a “political animal” , and for that reason he can only achieve the above-mentioned virtues as part of a state. And since the city is formed by many individuals, the virtue of the state is constituted by the individual virtues of its citizens. It is therefore clear that fulfillment of requirements for the happy life of an individual, namely being virtuous and self-sufficient, is equally necessary for the state as a whole in order to be happy. We thus see that the virtue of a state is directly linked to the virtue of an individual, and that therefore the means of achieving the former will run parallel with those of the latter.
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.
total good of the man. Plato holds that if the desire were truly for a good
Plato's Republic centers on a simple question: is it always better to be just than unjust? The Republic sustains reflections on political questions, as well. Not that ethics and politics exhaust the concerns of the Republic.
Plato believed that change should start with government and then seep into the person. The government is more powerful and thus the people would obey the laws of the government. The problem with this thought is that governments do not last forever and societies are never stable. Once the government topples, the law is gone and the citizens have free reign to do whatever they would like. When the cat is gone, the mice come out to play. When the change is made within the person, the change lives m...
Immediately, Aristotle alleges that all actions aim for good, thus proposing that all human activity is to be of some good. These activities attempt to meet a greater end; a chief good met by subordinate desires. However, Aristotle introduces that the nature of good is presumed by convention, not nature, and are administered by politics. Governments determine which sciences and arts are studied, who studies them, and the extent to which they are studied.
Charles Baudelaire, a well-known English poet, once said that “Nature... is nothing but the inner voice of self-interest.” The philosophical theme of self-interest has been a common idea among political thinkers for many years. In any issue that is linked to the realm of political philosophy, the role of self-interest within a society must be considered. The role of self-interest within a society is the basis for the moral thinking that involves weighing the “needs and obligations of an individual against the goods of the individual and in turn society” (The Role of Self interest in Political Philosophy). Before confronting an issue within a society, a political thinker must decide whether or not people are ultimately self-interested. The government system of checks and balances was established to confront the issue of self-interest. The political thinkers, John Stuart Mill and John Locke unveiled the mysteries of what it meant to live in freedom and possess liberty, in which the self-interest of humanity does not impose on the rights of others. Both Locke and Mills believed that in order to govern over a society, people must have freedom. The difference between these political thinkers lies in how much freedom people should be entitled to within a political society.
A democracy in Plato’s Republic is viewed as one of the lowest types of regimes a city could have because it can be the one that fails the easiest. There are five total regimes that Plato ranks having to do with how successful they can be. The best being a Aristocracy, then Timocracy, Oligarchy, Democracy and the worst being Tyranny. Each type of regime that fails degenerates into a worse regime. For example, if a Democracy fails then it later becomes a Tyranny.
Plato’s Republic is a dialogue set in Athens, which at the time of documentation was the center of the democratic world. Despite the city’s knowledge and construction of political structures ahead of its time, the main question addressed in the Republic is that of justice. What is justice, and why should we want to be just? Many competing thoughts are outlined within the Republic, notably that of a Sophist named Thrasymachus, who stated that justice is “nothing other than what is advantageous for the stronger” (Plato, p. 15, 5c). Socrates, the main philosopher in this dialogue who claims that he “knows nothing” (Plato, p. 35, 354c) disagrees with Thrasymachus and spends the entire book trying to disprove the argument that the unjust person
The second book of the Republic shows the repressive quality of Plato’s society. Plato, talking through Socrates, wants
So states behave non morally vis-à-vis particular interests to achieve their higher goal, the common good: paying taxes hurt people on the short term but is supposed to benefit the society on the longer one for example. I will here argue that states have to be unjust.
Consequently, if indeed there are several kinds of constitution, it is clear that there cannot be a single virtue that is the virtue-of a good citizen. But the good man, we say, does express a single virtue: the complete one. Evidently, then, it is possible for someone to be a good citizen without having acquired the virtue expressed by a good man" (1276b). What Aristotle doesn't tell us is who is better off. Is it sufficient to be the good citizen or is it definitely more satisfying to be the good man? The good man is recognizably superior to the good citizen. The good man possesses everything that is good. He does what is just and what is just is beneficial to himself and to those around him. His soul is completely well-ordered and, therefore, cannot allow for his desires to take over and commit evil or injustice of any kind.