Political Philosophy Essay

While the free essays can give you inspiration for writing, they cannot be used 'as is' because they will not meet your assignment's requirements. If you are in a time crunch, then you need a custom written term paper on your subject (political philosophy)
Here you can hire an independent writer/researcher to custom write you an authentic essay to your specifications that will pass any plagiarism test (e.g. Turnitin). Waste no more time!

Political philosophy’s are the theories and ideas of those who believe that

they have an answer to the questions that politics raise in society. The

questions that these political philosophers set out to answer range from

describing what the state of nature is to what type of regimes are necessary to

tame and organize the nature of man. The ideas that they come up with are not

all that original. Plato, an early political philosopher and student of

Socrates, set out to come up with a society that would function properly. His

ideal society would consist of rulers, guardians, and the masses. All of which

are molded at a young age to play a societal role in order to contribute to the

betterment of their social arena. Plato has gone down in history as one of the

better political philosophers to ever live, and arguably the best. While looking

at what a society needs, he was able to recognize the needs of a society as well

as the needs of the individual. He # humbled the ego of man, when he

acknowledged that one individual could not survive on his own and that all

people are dependent on others to survive. His idea of an organized community

has been the focus of many political philosophy debates and has been a stepping

stone from which many philosophers have created their own ideal social

environment. Though their theories may not be identical to Plato’s, signs of

his structures are definitely evident. Thomas Hobbes, a political philosopher in

the seventeenth century, had many theories and ideas that seemed to have

coincided with Plato’s thoughts. Hobbes view of the state of nature was a very

primitive one. He felt that in the state of nature there was a war of every man

against every man to survive. In the natural state, justice was impossible,

because without set limits and structures, everyone has the rights to everything

and anarchy is almost inevitable. The only way to escape the unfortunate fate of

anarchy would be for everyone to agree to a covenant. In this covenant, all the

people would give up their rights and create a sovereign. The conditions of the

covenant was to give the sovereign full discretion in dealing with citizens. It

was up to the sovereign to protect the lives of the citizens. Quite ironically,

the sovereign also had the right to have any citizen # killed. Fortunately, the

citizens did not give up their right to fight back and were allowed to, usually

to no avail. As long as the sovereign was keeping the majority of citizens alive

and maintaining absolute power, the covenant would be considered successful and

a civil society would have been created. The covenant proposed in Leviathan, was

meant to help keep the common good of peace. As long as people weren’t killing

each other the common good was being reached and the monarchy was considered

successful. If people continued to kill each other the covenant of the absolute

sovereign would be looked upon as tyranny. This is clearly comparable to

Plato’s theory of a civil society. Plato pointed out how no one person could

survive by them self or without the help of a controlled civil society. Hobbes

takes Plato’s idea of men dependent upon other men, to extremes when he

reveals that men will kill each other in order to survive. WHY? Because other

people have what we need in order to maintain our lives, whether it be property,

food or etc. But why do we need a civil society? Hobbes, again is playing off

Plato’s acknowledgement of the selfishness of man. Because people are selfish

and are willing to do whatever it takes to live, they are going to violate

others in order to better themselves. Only in a # society where restrictions and

laws are placed upon people, will people begin to work with one another instead

of against one another in the effort to survive together and use the resources

and expertise that each person has to offer. Though Hobbes’ way of governing

this communal society is a bit different than Plato, it still stems from the

same premise. The sovereign that Hobbes describes will be given complete

discretion and is trusted to act on what is best for the overall community.

Likewise, Plato’s rulers are trusted to bring the community together in the

hopes of making a strong and flourishing civil society. A definite difference

between the two rulers of Hobbes and Plato is that Plato’s ruler would be

naturally picked by the individual’s inherent wisdom. His ruler would be

someone who was born wise and meant to be in the ruling position. Hobbes’

ruler would be someone who the citizens picked and acknowledged as the absolute

sovereign in the societies covenant. Alexis De Tocqueville, a political

philosopher of the nineteenth century, is another good example of a philosopher

who’s ideas where simply branches of Plato’s philosophical roots. Coming

from an aristocracy in France, De Tocqueville went to America to study the

prison system. Instead of following through with this study, he found himself

intrigued with the political # system that occupied America. His work, Democracy

in America, became a political comparison between Aristocracy and Democracy.

Instead of looking at the behavior of people in the primitive state of nature,

like Plato and Hobbes, he focused on the present and what would be the best

political structure for the societies that people were currently in. This way of

building his political beliefs was different than Plato’s and Hobbes’ way of

coming up with their theories, but was still effective in helping him analyze

what type of societal structure would most effectively contribute to the common

good of each communities individuals. Being from France, De Tocqueville was

intrigued by the amount of political freedom that all people, from the lowest to

the highest social classes were entitled to. It amazed him how the United States

could manage to maintain such a strong political system without having a central

dominating party that had the final say in what laws were passed. Much to his

surprise, people of even the lowest financial class were able to give an opinion

as to what rules and laws the government should pass. This was evident in the

U.S. judicial system, were every person was capable of being on a jury and

deciding the fate of another person. The person on trial was not simply heard by

a single superior being, but instead was given the chance to convey his side of

the case to # a jury of many people. This gave the plaintiff an equal shot at

justice despite what his social status may be. Because the jury was randomly

selected amongst all citizens, from all social statures. This judicial system

protected the rights of the individuals and maintained the nations declaration

of the common good. The jury that is selected would be comparable to Plato’s

guardians, who’s job was to defend what the founders had established.

Likewise, the jury’s job is to make sure that everyone gets a fair shot at

justice, a right that America’s founders set out to uphold. Among other

things, De Tocqueville was dumb founded by the ease with which people were able

to voice their opinions. And, despite their opinions, people seemed more willing

to follow the rules and laws that the nation set, even if the weren’t in favor

of them. He came to the conclusion that, “...as long as the majority is still

undecided, discussion is carried on, but as soon as its decision is irrevocably

pronounced, every one is silent, and the friends as well as the opponents of the

measure unite in assenting to its propriety”(De Tocqueville, Princeton

Readings of Political Thought,p.416). Because decisions such as, what laws and

rules to pass, are decided by a majority after weighing the pros and cons,

people are more willing to yield to the ruling because it has been fairly #

analyzed and presented by both sides, not just by a monarch with absolute power

and say. The absence of a monarch in America was to assure that the goal of the

common good would never be endangered by injustice. The way that America handles

it’s citizens, allows for amendments to laws and an equal chance for everyone

to succeed, regardless of individual’s preceding family histories. Here we are

able to see another similarity to Plato’s Republic when De Tocqueville directs

his attention to how the people of America work together to build a strong

community, instead of fighting each other to survive, they are...

You should cite this paper as follows:

MLA Style
. EssayMania.com. Retrieved on 24 May, 2012 from
    <http://essaymania.com/166682/political-philosophy>

More College Papers

Plato`s Theory Of Knowledge essay
Plato's Theory of Knowledge is very interesting. He expresses this theory with three approaches: his allegory of The Cave, his metaphor of the Divided Line and his doctrine The Forms. Each theory is interconnected; one could not be without the other. Here we will explore how one relates to the ot

Plato's Republic essay
Virtues contribute to peopleÂ’s actions in todayÂ’s society. Society as a whole has a common set of virtues that many people agree on. In todayÂ’s society, these are known as laws. Virtues also mold the individual outlook on life, and give them the moralÂ’s to do what is right. In The Republic, Plato

Plato's Phaedo essay
In Plato's Phaedo, Socrates is explaining to his friends that the acquiring knowledge comes from a recollection of things from a previous life. Socrates uses this as a way to comfort his friends. Based on this, according to Socrates, if a human being can learn anything, they must have known somet