Theories on the Political and Social Structure of the Society

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Body
Conclusion
Works Cited

Introduction

There have been a notable number of philosophers in the course of history whose thoughts and theories on the political and social structure of the society have influenced its hierarchy. The most famous of these philosophers include Plato, Aristotle, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, Karl Marx and John Rawls. In this essay, we will discuss their most notable contributions and the impact they have had in our current society.

Body

Platonic Philosophy

Plato, an ancient Greek philosopher born of a noble family was concerned to illustrate that the level of right and wrong was not merely an issue of principle. Plato advanced the conjecture of other pre-Socratic philosophers concerning change and tried to bring together Parmenides’ and Heraclitus’ doctrines through the famous Platonic Philosophy. (New Knowledge Library, 12)

Plato, just like Heraclitus, had firm faith in impermanence of worldly things and that these things were examined by human senses and took part in making the ideal Form. The ideal forms only exist in human mind and are therefore neither unchanging nor material. Plato’s goal in the philosophy was to understand the eternal form and to educate others about that idea.

Plato looked upon ethics as the most vital aspect of knowledge. He emphasized the rational basis of virtue and associated virtue with wisdom. This idea led to the purported “Socratic paradox” asserted by Socrates in the Protagoras that “no person voluntarily commits evil” (New Knowledge Library, 18)

Plato took time to observe and study the basic problems faced with political theories, natural sciences, theology, metaphysics and the theories of knowledge and eventually came up with inspirations that have been regarded as the permanent elements in the western thoughts. Therefore, Plato’s philosophy is based on his doctrine of forms or theory of ideas as expressed in many of his arguments especially in the “Republic and the Parmenides”.

Aristotle’s Citizenship

Aristotle believed from his heart that an ideal state, no matter what form of government it is, must maintain its authority by attending to the healthy living of its people as a whole. What aligns Aristotle with the democratic theory is his definition of a state as “an association of free men”. Despite this fact, Aristotle at some point distastes democracy and argues that in the society, there exist a certain class of people should not have the right to take part in the democratic advancement of a state because they are not worthy. (New Knowledge Library, 22)

Aristotle refers to his version of democracy as “Polity” and defines its constitution as an assurance of political management that is practiced by the mass of the population with a common goal. The nature of Polis, he analyzes, is in direct relation with the city-state and is aimed at addressing ethical and moral issues more than politics. In a nut shell, Aristotle’s theory on citizenship is a political argument that a government must facilitate moral and happy living of its people.

Machiavelli’s Power

In his renown dissertation on power The Prince (1517), Niccolo Machiavelli believed that the rules power revolve around struggles at every power level. Adolfe A. Berle refers to the prince as “the greatest single study of power on record.” (Berle, 19)

Machiavellianism is the philosophies set forth in the Prince and have been regarded as evil through the centuries. However, business leaders and politicians have been in agreement that Machiavelli only defines the physics of power and its effects on the society.

Machiavelli analyzes power as a way in which a state can gain sufficient resources to become independent and manage to stay in control. He explains extensively in “The Prince” about his desires to see an independent Italy and how the desire was driven by his own fascinations. The book directly argues the maxims of power and pleads leaders to abide by this strategy. However, from the onset, Machiavelli objective was to talk about the elements of political power. (Berle, 32)

Hobbes’s Justice

In the Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes discusses justice and how it relates to contracts. In his dialogue with the fool, the fool argues that it is in the best interest of man to act unjustly when he says “hath sayd in his heart, there is no such thing as justice” (Leviathan, 203). Hobbes, in his reply insists that it is ridiculous to be unjust since it is never in anyone’s self-interest.

According to Hobbes, justice and contracts go hand in hand. He argues that justice is a natural state that exists when there is anarchy and the probability of war is high. Individuals sign contracts in an attempt to defend themselves. These contracts are agreed upon by the parties to trust each other and avoid instances and actions that may lead to conflicts. Conflicts, according to Hobbes, often lead to self-preservation. The contracts between the parties will serve the interests of all the parties in agreement and is done voluntarily. For Hobbes, “the definition of injustice, is no other than the non-performance of Covenant” (202)

Locke’s Freedom

Locke was a libertarian who had a strong belief in the freedom of man. Although his argument of freedom was in contrast with other philosophers’ who regarded themselves as libertarians, the concept of freedom in his argument is universal and focuses on the fact that freedom has a cause. A number of philosophers argued that a person has freedom only if the action is not caused but Locke argues that every action, including freedom, has a cause. (Schultz, 53)

Locke argued that it is impossible to have free volition while free action is possible. He also agrees with most other philosophers that an agent can enjoy freedom depending on the actions that they will and that these actions are voluntary. However, these actions depend directly on the volitions.

Therefore, Locke examines indifference and its impulsiveness for freedom. (Chappell, 123).

Marx’s equality

Karl Marx’s economical and political philosophy addresses economic inequalities with a concern for freedom, discarding liberal supposition that economic inequalities have no effect on political inequalities. This theory on equality breaks both the liberal and republican beliefs by spotlighting on neither citizens nor individuals but on the whole class. According to Marx, the fundamental problem to equality lies between those with the means to economic production and those who do not. Although it is of concern that others are rich while others are poor, it all stops at inequality. (Verma, 78)

From a Marxist’s point of view, other inequalities that are not economic are actually outgrowths of the fundamentally economic equality which is the foundation of a capitalist political economic structure. An example of such inequality is inequality between sexes.

Rawls’ Veil of ignorance

Rawls’ Veil of ignorance is a concept envisioned by John Rawls (1921-2002) as outlined in his Theory of Justice (1971) as an intellectual tool that enables people to develop a level of justice system while remaining neglectful of their position or value in the society. In his social contract, Rawls argues that normal people would agree if each of them were behind a veil of ignorance since the veil would allow them to understand the general reality of the society like the “political issues and the laws of economic theories… and all the facts that alter the human options of the laws of the justice system” (Rawls, 63)

The veil of ignorance prevents individuals from comprehending a number of real issues about themselves like “their position in the society, their social status, class situation, wealth, abilities, strength, intelligence, outset of the fair and just, repugnance to risk or accountability to pessimism or liability”. Rawls argues that individuals would be in agreement on this principle of justice including the controversial “difference principle” (Rawls, 87)

Conclusion

Based on the discussion, it is therefore in line to credit the current understanding of our current society on the notable contributions of the above philosophers. Their arguments may vary in some instances but each addresses a different aspect of the political and social structure of our society from a different perspective.

Works Cited

Adolph A. Berle. “Power.” New York: Harcourt, Brace & World. 1969. 21-69. Print.

Armitage, D. “Hobbes and the foundations of modern international thought.” 2007. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Print.

Chappell, Vere. “Locke on the Freedom of the Will.” In G. A. J. Rogers (ed.), Locke’s Philosophy: Content and Context. Oxford University Press: 1994. 121-183. Print.

Hobbes, Thomas. “The Leviathan.” London: Penguin. Print. 1985.

New Knowledge Library. “Universal Reference Encyclopedia.” Volume 2. Bay Books. 1981. Print.

Rawls, John. “Justice as Fairness.” Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. 1958. Print.

Schultz, David. “Chains of Freedom: John Locke and the Problem of the Other.” American Political Science Association, Philadelphia. 2009. Web. allacademic.com. 2009.

The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics. “Veil of ignorance.” Oxford University Press, 1996, 2003. Web. Answers.com. 2009.

Verma, Vidhu. “Justice, Equality and Community: An Essay in Marxist Political Theory.” London: Sage Publications Pvt. Ltd (2000). Print.

Click Here To Order Now!