Broad Political Theory Questions

Picking on materialism in Feuerbach, Marx claims sensuousness and actuality as the main objects of contemplation. This implicitly implies that humanity is interested on selfish issues which result to individual pleasure. Objectivity is also viewed in regards to whether humanity can remain objective. Marx‘s position is of critical importance though the stand on whether it has changed the world remains debatable. Locke’s philosophy has played a big part in the present day events. A look at the American constitution serves as a pointer to this view.

Even the unites nations charter on human rights seems to have made reference to Lockes’ work especially on property rights. Locke seems too be an advocate of a free society in which individuals get to benefit equitably. Though this has not been achieved, the society has made remarkable improvements towards attaining certain universal goals like the millennium development goals. The pursuit of objectivity as implied by Marx is thus a unifying feature of the two philosophers. Plato only interpreted the world while attempting to achieve his goal of indicating or underscoring the importance of the republic.

Whereas, the pursuit if justice is of noble consideration, it remains to be seen whether, it has been achieved or whether it will ever be achieved. The effect that the Plato philosophy has had remains persistent and unbroken. The academy the philosopher opened in Athens remains a pillar of the works undertaken by the scholar. The influences of Plato are known to have played a significant role in shaping various religious developments over a long period of time. If justice is to be attained, then objectivity is a prerequisite, a fact observed by Marx. 2. Machiavelli used hypocrisy to lay siege on the Christian faith.
The philosopher was always against morality apart from the support he gave to those intending to stand on its way. Christianity is based on what its faith call good morals. As Machiavelli puts it, morality is not an issue if it cannot be justified. Machiavelli believed that it’s the ‘end that justifies the means’. Machiavelli saw every piece of religion as an act of propaganda. Machiavelli thought that the Christian faith would collapse before the world itself came to an end. Through social relativism, Machiavelli claimed the absence of the Christian god.
In this construction, it was claimed that since God never existed to offer universal morals, then there were no morals top be followed. Socrates is believed to have carried a study on what constituted holiness. This in itself presented an act of impiety. While facing a case in Xenophon, Socrates twice objected to using a divine sign ass he prepared his defense. Socrates in another case chose to save Euthyphro instead of saving himself. In short, the prime focus rests on the accusation against Socrates as introducing new gods in the town. The two philosophers appeared to have veered off societal godly underpinnings.
The fact that Socrates is accused of bringing gods to town serves as a pointer to the fact that there are respected and un-respected gods. Machiavelli’s rebuttal of the Christian faith also presents the philosopher as a person that objects to well crafted societal religious leanings. It is thus held that these two philosophers played a role in jeopardizing well regarded traditions during their time. 3. Socrates uses the human tendency to corruption to propagate his preferred type of leadership. Socrates points to timocracy, democracy, oligarchy, and tyranny as unacceptable forms of government.
Socrates finally submitted that if ruling was to attain the best for society, then it should be left to philosopher leaders. In Socrates’ thinking, the philosophers were the most just and least susceptible to graft. The scholar augmented the position by claiming that the philosophers were in a position to rule in pursuit of the good for the city as opposed to for the self. In a legitimate society, there is no room for societal divisions; all citizens should enjoy same level benefits. Thomas Hobbes’ views on the best possible form or structure of government were premised on a society led by a powerful leviathan.
Based on social contract theories, the focus remains on the creation of a strong centre of administration. This type of government as proposed by Hobbes will guarantee the security and welfare of the people. Any abuses that may arise as a result of the leadership by the leviathan must be accepted. This is premised on the fact that the people by setting up the leviathan, agreed to cede their natural power. Socrates manages to drive to his peers that a government is a role played best by people disconnected with self interest.
On the other hand, one gets the impression that Hobbes was driving home the need to have a powerful leadership that was not answerable to people. In the Socrates’ society individuals would have a say, while in the Hobbesian society, individuals would not hold a say on public issues. 4. Thomas Hobbes believed that human desires, selfish interests, pleasures and pains of a moment played a key role in decision making. These factors among others imply tat the human nature cannot be relied upon in passing judgment on a number of issues as distortions may occur.
Hobbes focal point in relation to human nature remains premised on the concept of motivation. Hobbes saw man as a self centered and rationally calculating individual. It is thus highly unlikely that people will pursue common good. Individuals due to their selfish stances are thus destined top pursue personal goals even if this means putting the goals of the rest at stake. In Hobbes thinking, common good is thus an illusion. In reference to Plato, the pursuit of happiness had to lie with the observation of virtues and commonly accepted doctrines.
Plato held the Sophistic view concerning knowledge which saw it as subjective and relative. This, in reference to Plato, undermined morality. It thus led Plato into believing that there was no infallible truth. Plato failed to see the point why a person who could not understand the self and rules of morality would be bound to look beyond the principle of self actualization. In short, if morality does not take care of individual interests, then individuals are not bound to observe its dictates. Plato saw man’s nature as rational and expected society to be organized in tandem with requirements of civility on rational principles.
As a rational being, a human being knows or is in a position to evaluate every case scenario and pursues what best serves the interests desired by the individual in question. 5. On the basis of Aristotle, happiness is not primarily premised upon an exercise of virtue but rather on the administering of an ideal state. In a nut shell, the interests of all are closely knit together such that the interests of all resemble the interests of a single individual in the republic. In precise terms, all individual acts are for the common good. This altruistic stance remains questionable as it is difficult in practice top find such states.
Niccolo Machiavelli is famous for the advice given to the monarch with a view to power monopolization. Machiavelli advocated for policies that would discourage mass activism in political affairs. Machiavelli believed the citizenry was well exercising its energies in private practice in the process leaving out political and state activities. In his book, the Prince, Machiavelli urged the monarch to use violence and force to achieve the government goals. Machiavelli held the view that political aims could not be led by a single set of religious or moral ideas.
From the above two positions, it emerges that there are interests to be protected by any state or society. The societal or state claims are wide varied as the ruled and the rulers may conflict on interests. Even if there were no conflicts, still issues regarding approach would arise. This puts the leaders, the few, against the ruled, the many. On this basis, Machiavelli sought to have the ruler have enormous responsibility in making decisions as the many could spoil the aspirations of a republic. However, Aristotle envisaged a scenario; whereby the interests are melted down to reflect a single position, a position difficult to reach.
Hence this implied that the leaders had to take a position that they thought would serve societal interests. 6. Aristotle viewed natural justice as a special species of political justice. Inn this view, Aristotle believed that a society had to enlist distributive and corrective measures to ensure societal cohesion. Aristotle claimed further, that the best regime may not after all the one that observes the rule of law in its operations. On the basis of Aristotle every civilized society had a set of rules and regulations it used to govern behaviour.
In Aristotle’s views, civilized society emerged as a result of the emerging need to develop laws to regulate certain aspects of life within different societies. Thomas Hobbes uses the term leviathan to capture the collective will of people. These people come together to form a government that retains the sovereign authority. To Thomas Hobbes, collective will is the major force behind the formation of a civilized society. The people realized that they had collective desire, to achieve the different desires; they saw it worthy to establish an authority to take care of their needs.
The biggest need being the provision of security so that each individual gets to go about their business without undue disturbance. The differences appear minute in this case as Aristotle’s view of a civilized society was based on the need for cohesiveness in society. On the other hand, the need for civility in reference to Thomas Hobbes rested on the drive to protect collective will. The act of protecting collective will is almost in line with regulating societal aspects so as to exact compliance. However, this should not be misconstrued to mean that the two mean the same thing as only similarities exist.
7. Aristotle believed that family existed just for the sake of political life. Further to this, Aristotle supposedly viewed politics as practiced for friendship purposes. Contrary to this position, Aristotle discussed family relations as types of friendships which are used as designs of political rule. He thus obscures the ordering of the relationships that he advocates in politics. The practice of politics must observe friendly relations just as a family does. In the terms of Aristotle, politics is thus useful in strengthening family ties.
The family integrates people into a family and thus aids the formation or the commencement of political life. John Locke’s 2nd treatise of government aimed to show that there was a legitimate foundation between people and power. This was captured by the social contract theory. Locke believed that a political society is not a form of family. In this regard, Locke was trying to discredit the patriarchal kingship. Locke went further to claim that a magistrate’s position on a case could not be compared o a father’s on a child’s case. Locke saw two distinct societies in this scenario.
Locke further claimed that the creation of the two societies was different and meant to achieve different goals. In Locke’s observation, the political society’s end is to possess property unlike a familial one that aims at raising children. The major separation point between the two scholars is premised on the aims of the two societies and how they are formed. Whereas Aristotle assumed that the two societies pursue one aim, Locke clearly shows that the aims are distinct in the two societies. The reasons for formation are equally found to be different as opposed to the views posited by Aristotle. 8.
Locke’s position on money is viewed in relation to the right to ownership of property. In Locke’s opinion, each individual had the right to acquire property through hard work. However, Locke only saw it necessary that an individual amasses what they only need and ensure that in that pursuit, their labor does not become destructive. In precise terms, what Locke stood for was acquisitions of needs. He was opposed to excessive accumulation of wealth which defines the current society. Locke appeared to assume that all things were naturally available to everybody and thus objected to the systems of accumulation.
An accumulation beyond what one could use at the time amounted to acquiring an unfair share. Aristotle saw the necessity of money in human life. However, he made a number of proposals regarding currency. Aristotle saw money as a common measure of al things available for consumption. In a nut shell, Aristotle saw money as the surest way of equalizing all consumables. In Aristotle’s terms, money was necessary to ensure a just and fair exchange system. The philosopher thus argued that money came up in a bid to ease the problem of exchange.
In Aristotle’s terms good money had to be durable, portable, divisible, and intrinsically valuable. On the basis of the above presentation, it is crystal clear that Locke saw money as a potential for unfair practices. It could only be fair if each individual would acquire a rightful amount so that everybody’s interests are taken care of. In reference to Aristotle, money was good only if it could be used for constructive purposes. Aristotle did not envisage money to be used in a commercialized manner. This is because of what Aristotle perceived as the nature’s limited nature.