Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The influence of Athenian democracy
The influence of Athenian democracy
William golding philosophy
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The influence of Athenian democracy
Ever since ancient Greece, philosophers have been debating for a method in which to create a true democracy. Ideally, such a government would utilize non-tyrannical majority rule, popular sovereignty and reason. Unfortunately, establishing this utopia is an impossible feat. Although society has imposed thoughtfulness upon people, humans are genetically hardwired to be selfish and corrupt. For this reason, human society will never achieve true democracy. The Greco-Roman empire believed the whole of a population is generally correct, and democratic institutions should trust the majority to make decisions appropriate for society. However, a large number of people can still be wrong. The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas illustrates tyranny of the …show more content…
Leaders in Athens believed that all citizens had a sense of self-worth because of their ability to reason. In order to give these individuals say in the law, leaders made reforms to the government that expanded the participation of citizens in government. Over time, Athenian government evolved into a direct democracy in which all citizens could directly participate. However, their government was very weak. Eventually, a small group of people took over the unstable government, ending democracy. Athens’s government was modeled after the idea of popular sovereignty. However, it collapsed because it gave power to too many self-centered and cruel people, who eventually took away the voices of the rest of the people. On the topic of joint cruelty, Golding wrote an article on the very subject called “Why Boys Become Vicious” some forty years after publishing his novel Lord of the Flies. The author gives an example of homeless, orphaned children from post-World War I Russia who roam the country, killing and attacking. He writes, “gangs begin to find cohesion merely in the joint fulfillment of their darkest instincts…We are born with evil in us and cruelty is a part of this” (15-19). In a world without social boundaries, groups gain solidarity “in the joint fulfillment of their darkest instincts.” Golding implies that social bonds occur when …show more content…
History credits the Greco-Romans for first putting the law above all people, even kings. They established ideas of individuality; that all people have worth. Greco-Romans believed that all citizens were equal, so the law should reflect the equality of all people. However, Roman officials, called patricians, often interpreted the law to suit themselves and took advantage of lower class citizens, plebeians. The plebeians were farmers and merchants who had little power. Patricians believed that because they had inherited their position in society, making laws was their birthright. The patrician’s beliefs are an example of natural human corruption and of selfishness. People born into positions of wealth and influence believe they deserve what they have, especially their power. The patricians were willing to act dishonestly for their own benefit without first considering the needs of others. All people put in their position, no matter their social conditioning, are destined to become corrupt because cruelty is a natural part of human nature. Likewise, ideas of innate human cruelty take center stage in William Golding’s Lord of the Flies. The title character in the book is a pig’s head, impaled on a sharpened stick and covered in flies. It appears to Simon, one of the British schoolboys stranded on an island. The Lord of the Flies tells Simon, “You’ll only meet me down there—so don’t try to escape...We are going to have
Democracy may be the best foundation on which to build a society, but to glorify it
Horatius Cocles demonstrates Roman values with his readiness to assert himself for the good of the community despite any ramifications. He even attempts to advise his men in the direction of virtue by claiming “that it was vain for them to seek safety” (Livy, 20). These men appear to follow standards typical of the Greeks, as their personal motives guide their actions instead of the needs of others. Their lack of concern for the entire state of the Republic is an example of what individuals were not to do. The success of the individual, in this case Horatius, is a victory in Rome, which contrasts the idea of individual arete, valued by the Greeks. The greatest honor for a Roman was saving the life of another Roman whereas in Greek culture, an individual displays excellence in competition (Burger 91). For the Greeks, an individual may achieve honor at the cost of defeating another. In contrast, Romans sought to achieve honor by protecting what was best for all. Therefore, Romans valued self sacrifice while Greeks appear more self-centered (Burger 91). Horatius Cocles demonstrates the values of the Roman society in his steadfast opposition to the enemy. He is a model to the state for his courage in adversity.
Golding has a rather pessimistic view of humanity having selfishness, impulsiveness and violence within, shown in his dark yet allegorical novel Lord of the Flies. Throughout the novel, the boys show great self-concern, act rashly, and pummel beasts, boys and bacon. The delicate facade of society is easily toppled by man's true beastly nature.
Democracy is control by the people. On the surface, this appears to be a superior form, but as Plato warned it is slow to react, oppresses of the minority, and lacks skilled leaders (Perry,
Democracy is not a contemporary phenomenon. It did not originate here in North America. Rather, its practice began---more than 2,000 years ago---in Athens, a city-state, in the Greek Mediterranean. The philosophers Aristotle and Plato attested to that fact in their writings. It is in Plato’s Republic that one finds the earliest definition of democracy, which is briefly, “the rule of the governed.” Plato compares democracy to monarchy, or rule of the one, oligarchy, or rule of the elite, and lastly, timocracy, or rule by property owners. Interestingly enough, the Republic’s author believed the rule of a philosopher-king was preferable to that of the masses. The Politics, written by Aristotle, provided a very robust explanation and justification of democracy, which will be detailed later in this paper. Nevertheless, democracy is synonymous with popular sovereignty or the notion that all within a human community have a say in the matters that affect them all.
Throughout the course of history, mankind has been recorded to corrupt itself. Men have grown tired of simply surviving; they have had to take and conquer others. Absolute monarchies control wealth, land, and even lives of men. The conditions of the people were solely dependent on the conditions of the one who was in power in that particular place and time. History has proven that most men rule unwisely in their kingdoms. To avoid tyrannical rule, some make an attempt to set up a government in which the people ruled themselves. This form of government is called a democracy, or “rule of the people.” History has also revealed through the Greeks and the French Revolution, that a democracy that gives complete power to the people, “absolute democracy”, is nothing more than a short prelude to tyranny.
Democracy has been the root of a limited government, the system of which government powers are distributed so that one group of leaders do not have too much influence. The limited government has been structured to keep peace amongst all parties that are involved in the government. And under the U.S. Constitution, citizens are given ultimate power by their right to choose their representatives through the democratic process of voting. Each levels of the government are limited as they have their own responsibilities. The city government has the most local level of government as the residents elect a city council and mayor to represent their interest at the city level. All city governments establish housing and health regulations, and are responsible
When we hear of the word democracy we think of a system of government where the people are in control or have most of the power. Most system of government tend to use the democratic way of leadership today around the world because of how popular it became in America. There are many influences that lead to this change in democracy that helps to shape it in the way it is used today. many social movements and interest groups has influenced and impacted a positive change in this new and reformed way of leadership. I will further elaborate and discuss what has led to this new democracy in the U.S.
Although there are many different forms of democracy, in a true democracy the power is in the hands of the people. In a representative democracy the nations “restrict popular decision making to electing or appointing officials who make public policy” (Text, 4). According to this definition, democracy is a form of government in which power and responsibility reside with those who have been appointed to make decisions for the good of the whole.
One basis of political democracy during this time period was the debate about property requirements to be able to vote. After the Revolution, no new state required property ownership to be able to vote. Also, constitutional conventions during the 1820s and 1830s got rid of property requirements within older states, mostly because the expanding amount of wage earners who did not have much property insisted on the right to vote. However, by 1860, in the South, where large slave owners controlled politics and did not trust mass democracy, property requisites were extinguished gradually and went away later than the rest of the nation. The personal independence necessary to the citizen was now found in owning one’s self, instead of owning property.
Democracy in the American culture is defined as “a system of government in which power is vested in people, either directly or through freely elected representatives.” Which is stated in Webster dictionary. Many Americans to me do not advantage democracy we live in. I feel as though too many people in authority have a substantial amount of power, and end up making the wrong decision. Which is not of the best interest for the people. The Government has devised a way for the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer. There is no median in between the high levels of society and the lower-class. Our middle class is vanishing, and it mainly because of how our democracy is setup. Our government is corrupt as a whole, which includes our democracy. Too many people in our democracy have the overall power and decision making ability to enforce, what they feel should be enforced in law. One example of this is the ongoing pain of taxes. Democracy is all about equality, but we totally lack it when paying our taxes. The small one percent of high class Americans are getting richer while
Direct democracy means forms of direct participation of citizens in democratic decision making in contrast to indirect or representative democracy, based on the sovereignty of the people. This can happen in the form of an assembly democracy or by initiative and referendum with ballot voting, with direct voting on issues instead of for candidates or parties. Sometimes the term is also used for electing representatives in a direct vote as opposed to indirect elections (by voting for an electing body, electoral college, etc.), as well as for recalling elected officeholders. Direct democracy may be understood as a full-scale system of political institutions, but in modern times, it means most often specific decision-making institutions in the broader
In deciphering what constitutes the brilliance of democracy then, we find that it is not citizens’ ability to make informed decisions or an unflawed and subtly manipulated election process, but the unapparent way in which democracy persuades citizens – informed or not - and leaders – corrupt or not – toward working to build better, more prosperous societies.
Throughout history different types of instrumental regimes have been in tact so civilizations remained structured and cohesive. As humanity advanced, governments obligingly followed. Although there have been hiccups from the ancient times to modern day, one type of government, democracy, has proven to be the most effective and adaptive. As quoted by Winston Churchill, democracy is the best form of government that has existed. This is true because the heart of democracy is reliant, dependent, and thrives on the populaces desires; which gives them the ability for maintaining the right to choose, over time it adjusts and fixes itself to engulf the prominent troubling issues, and people have the right of electing the person they deem appropriate and can denounce them once they no longer appease them. In this paper, the benefits of democracy are outlined, compared to autocratic communism, and finally the flaws of democracy are illustrated.
Rousseau describes democracy as a form of government that “has never existed and never will”. Yet twenty-six countries in the world are considered to be full democracies. How can this be possible? Rousseau’s concept of democracy supports the most fundamental and basic premise of democracy – one in which all citizens directly participate. While his idea of democracy cannot be considered an effective indictment of what passes for democracy today, it is not Rousseau’s account which is flawed, but that in modern society it would be practically impossible to achieve this idea of democracy.