Get help now

Political Philosophy Research Paper Political philosophys

  • Pages 12
  • Words 2770
  • Views 101
  • dovnload



  • Pages 12
  • Words 2770
  • Views 101
  • Academic anxiety?

    Get original paper in 3 hours and nail the task

    Get your paper price

    124 experts online

    Political Philosophy Essay, Research Paper

    Political doctrine? s are the theories and thoughts of those who believe that

    they have an reply to the inquiries that political relations raise in society. The

    inquiries that these political philosophers set out to reply scope from

    depicting what the province of nature is to what type of governments are necessary to

    tame and form the nature of adult male. The thoughts that they come up with are non

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

    Socrates, set out to come up with a society that would work decently. His

    ideal society would dwell of swayers, defenders, and the multitudes. All of which

    are molded at a immature age to play a social function in order to lend to the

    improvement of their societal sphere. Plato has gone down in history as one of the

    better political philosophers to of all time populate, and arguably the best. While looking

    at what a society needs, he was able to acknowledge the demands of a society every bit good

    as the demands of the person. He # humbled the self-importance of adult male, when he

    acknowledged that one person could non last on his ain and that all

    people are dependent on others to last. His thought of an organized community

    has been the focal point of many political doctrine arguments and has been a stepping

    rock from which many philosophers have created their ain ideal societal

    environment. Though their theories may non be indistinguishable to Plato? s, marks of

    his constructions are decidedly apparent. Thomas Hobbes, a political philosopher in

    the 17th century, had many theories and thoughts that seemed to hold

    coincided with Plato? s ideas. Hobbes position of the province of nature was a really

    crude 1. He felt that in the province of nature there was a war of every adult male

    against every adult male to last. In the natural province, justness was impossible,

    because without set bounds and constructions, everyone has the rights to everything

    and lawlessness is about inevitable. The lone manner to get away the unfortunate destiny of

    lawlessness would be for everyone to hold to a compact. In this compact, all the

    people would give up their rights and make a crowned head. The conditions of the

    compact was to give the autonomous full discretion in covering with citizens. It

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

    the crowned head besides had the right to hold any citizen # killed. Fortunately, the

    citizens did non give up their right to contend back and were allowed to, normally

    to no help. Equally long as the crowned head was maintaining the bulk of citizens alive

    and keeping absolute power, the compact would be considered successful and

    a civil society would hold been created. The compact proposed in Leviathan, was

    meant to assist maintain the common good of peace. Equally 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 compact of the absolute

    crowned head would be looked upon as dictatorship. This is clearly comparable to

    Plato? s theory of a civil society. Plato pointed out how no one individual could

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

    takes Plato? s thought of work forces dependent upon other work forces, to extremes when he

    reveals that work forces will kill each other in order to last. WHY? Because other

    people have what we need in order to keep our lives, whether it be belongings,

    nutrient or etc. But why do we necessitate a civil society? Hobbes, once more is playing off

    Plato? s recognition of the selfishness of adult male. Because people are selfish

    and are willing to make whatever it takes to populate, they are traveling to go against

    others in order to better themselves. Merely in a # society where limitations and

    Torahs are placed upon people, will people get down to work with one another alternatively

    of against one another in the attempt to last together and utilize the resources

    and expertness that each individual has to offer. Though Hobbes? manner of regulating

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

    same premiss. The crowned head that Hobbes depict will be given complete

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

    Similarly, Plato? s swayers are trusted to convey the community together in the

    hopes of doing a strong and booming civil society. A definite difference

    between the two swayers of Hobbes and Plato is that Plato? s swayer would be

    of course picked by the person? s built-in wisdom. His swayer would be

    person who was born wise and meant to be in the opinion place. Hobbes?

    swayer would be person who the citizens picked and acknowledged as the absolute

    crowned head in the societies covenant. Alexis De Tocqueville, a political

    philosopher of the 19th century, is another good illustration of a philosopher

    who? s thoughts where merely subdivisions of Plato? s philosophical roots. Coming

    from an nobility in France, De Tocqueville went to America to analyze the

    prison system. Alternatively of following through with this survey, he found himself

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

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

    Alternatively of looking at the behaviour of people in the crude province of nature,

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

    political construction for the societies that people were presently in. This manner of

    constructing his political beliefs was different than Plato? s and Hobbes? manner of

    coming up with their theories, but was still effectual in assisting him analyse

    what type of social construction would most efficaciously contribute to the common

    good of each communities persons. Bing from France, De Tocqueville was

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

    the highest societal categories were entitled to. It amazed him how the United States

    could pull off to keep such a strong political system without holding a cardinal

    ruling party that had the concluding say in what Torahs were passed. Much to his

    surprise, people of even the lowest fiscal category were able to give an sentiment

    as to what regulations and Torahs the authorities should go through. This was apparent in the

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

    make up one’s minding the destiny of another individual. The individual on test was non merely heard by

    a individual superior being, but alternatively was given the opportunity to convey his side of

    the instance to # a jury of many people. This gave the complainant an equal shooting at

    justness despite what his societal position may be. Because the jury was indiscriminately

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

    protected the rights of the persons and maintained the states declaration

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

    defenders, who? s occupation was to support what the laminitiss had established.

    Similarly, the jury? s occupation is to do certain that everyone gets a just shooting at

    justness, a right that America? s laminitiss set out to uphold. Among other

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

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

    to follow the regulations and Torahs that the state set, even if the weren? T in favour

    of them. He came to the decision that, ? … every bit long as the bulk is still

    open, treatment is carried on, but every bit shortly as its determination is irrevocably

    pronounced, every one is soundless, and the friends every bit good as the oppositions of the

    step unite in acceding to its properness? ( De Tocqueville, Princeton

    Readings of Political Thought, p.416 ) . Because determinations such as, what Torahs and

    regulations to go through, are decided by a bulk after weighing the pros and cons,

    people are more willing to give to the opinion because it has been reasonably #

    analyzed and presented by both sides, non merely by a sovereign with absolute power

    and state. The absence of a sovereign in America was to guarantee that the end of the

    common good would ne’er be endangered by unfairness. The manner that America grips

    it? s citizens, allows for amendments to Torahs and an equal opportunity for everyone

    to win, irrespective of single? s predating household histories. Here we are

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

    his attending to how the people of America work together to construct a strong

    community, alternatively of contending each other to last, they are cognizant of their

    dependence upon others. One individual can non go through a jurisprudence in America

    , a bulk ballot

    is needed in order to go through Torahs that are in the best involvement of the state as

    a whole, non merely an single. De Tocqueville, explored the common good of

    America and was able to turn up the precise logical thinking as to why the United

    States? political system could go on to come on in such a democratic

    model without any major effusions of lawlessness. After dissecting the political

    system and people of the state, his decision became clear. Peoples in the

    United States have come from many different beginnings and have come together in

    hunt of a common good. The common good that became the foundation of America

    was independency, that # could merely be to the full found in a democratic society. Many

    of the people that came to the United States, came from topographic points of subjugation and

    monarchal regulation and were deathly afraid of any monarchical reoccurrence. With the

    establishing male parents of the United States all in understanding that they wanted a secure

    system that would forbid any type of monarchy, the common good of equality and

    freedom for all citizens came into drama. This understanding, though rather different

    in content, was tantamount to the compact that Hobbes? society abided by, in

    that it was an understanding that everyone honored. What baffled De Tocqueville, was

    why such a democratic constellation wouldn? T be executable in Europe. In his

    comparing survey he confronted the grounds as to why the particular democratic

    system of America was feasible at that place, but non in his native Europe. The

    justification that he came up with is really rather interesting. The

    blue ways of Europe have been so engraved in their political system,

    that any effort at complete Democracy would do more struggles than

    regards to their societal sphere. Peoples in Europe are enthralled by their yesteryear

    lineage and civilization. Because these people are taking lives with such societal

    segregation, any glance of complete equality would take to more turbulences than

    jubilations. Bringing people of # lower categories and higher categories to a point

    where they are no longer separated by fiscal or household restraints would do

    more pandemonium on the society. With people keeping their lineage so near to their

    Black Marias, feelings of malice and abrasiveness are bound to present a mass lawlessness,

    that would outweigh the social integrity that would usually be expected with the

    budding of equality and independency. Democracy would non be in the involvement of

    the European states because of the nature of their citizens, and the strong

    traditional feelings that they hold. The common good of Europe is non

    needfully the same as America? s. De Tocqueville deducted an reply that

    seemed to be reasonably accurate when looking at the two authorities constructions. He

    was really practical when he decided to establish his societal ideals on the present

    state of affairss of people, alternatively of seeking to get down from the really crude and

    natural phases of worlds. Though this facet of his research is different than

    Plato? s and Hobbes? , it still allowed him to come up with a pretty similar

    solution to the two predating philosophers. De Tocqueville? s manner of looking at

    society allowed him to see that though a Democracy may be the best manner for

    America to make it? s common good, a Democracy may non be as efficient when

    covering with the different communities of Europe. Karl Marx, a political

    philosopher from the 19th # century, is another really good known

    philosopher. Just like Plato, Hobbes and De Tocqueville, Marx had a vision of

    how a community that is segregated by societal categories could perchance take up a

    new governmental construction that would outdo aid all the citizens of the society,

    non merely the nobilities of the country. His ideal society would be

    ? classless? . Marx saw society? s construction to be a consequence of history, that

    would finally smooth it? s manner out. The beginning means to his program of the

    ? classless? society would get down when a motion towards stoping capitalist economy

    took consequence. He saw capitalist economy as a manner in which the middle class exploited their

    workers in order to increase the value of their productions. Unfortunately for

    capitalist economy, it had a deadly and suicidal feature that would convey

    an terminal to it. This catastrophic trait was it? s rapacious demand to vie and

    rule the production market. The competition of the manufacturers to bring forth more

    and in bend exploit their workers more, would finally do some of the

    manufacturers to travel out of concern. With less competition there would be more lower

    degree and laden workers. The consequence of holding more workers than

    in-between category citizens changed the society from being a capitalist community to a

    community of socialism. Finally, this of all time altering society would alter from

    socialist environment # to a? classless? society. Marx held steadfastly that

    industrialism would be the key to the? classless? society. He calculated

    that more machines bearing the brunt of production would emancipate worlds from

    the rough labour that they had endured. Because machines can bring forth more in a

    shorter period of clip than worlds, he speculated that their would be adequate

    green goods to let everyone to populate a generous life. Hence, everyone would hold an

    equal means to a good life and the society would turn from an nobility to a

    ? classless? society. This? classless? atmosphere would be a Communist

    environment where no one individual owns land, but alternatively the belongings and goods

    produced on belongings would be detention of the province, non the persons of the

    province. Karl Marx? s theory of the province being the proprietor of all belongings, in a

    sense, set all people in the province on an equal degree. Because the province owned

    all the green goods and belongings, they were able to administer the goods to all the

    citizens. This would reassure that all citizens wellbeings were being met, therefore

    the common good would be attained. Because of Marx? s sensitiveness towards the

    proletariat category and their demands, every bit good as the demands of the in-between category, his

    theories were simply constructs that would assist run into the common good # of the

    province as a whole, non merely the elite. Marx? s outlook is what puts him in the

    same category as Plato, Hobbes and De Tocqueville. He sought a agency towards

    bettering the community; communism was the concluding construct he came up with, that

    he felt could heighten the life manners of all the people within his societal

    sphere. The thoughts of Hobbes, De Tocqueville and Marx were all ways of doing the

    agencies meet with an terminal. They all sought to supply a communal environment where

    all citizens could populate without prejudice? . Though Hobbes sought a monarchy, with

    one crowned head to take the province, and De Tocqueville discovered that what is good

    for one province is non needfully good for another and Marx founded a Communist

    authorities he thought would outdo work for his province; doesn? t mean that they

    did non all portion a common end. It is obvious through their ideas and words

    that each of these philosophers focused an huge sum of their attending

    towards organizing the perfect political constructions to pull off the citizens of their

    provinces with. All three of them shared the same end, their end was to seek out

    the finest solutions that would decide the quandary that their provinces faced,

    they were all on a pursuit for the common good. The lone thing that separates

    these authors is the agencies they used, in an effort to fulfill the terminal … the #

    common good. Plato was the earliest of all the presented philosophers. His thoughts

    and aspirations were all based on the cognition that he acquired from his

    instructor, Socrates, and his ain experiences. His ideas of prosecuting a common

    good for a community of people, non merely for an person, were foundational

    ideas that had a drastic carry through on political philosophers that would

    follow. Hobbes, De Tocqueville and Marx have had notable effects on the

    political systems that have emerged; but I can state with assurance, that at the

    root of their philosophical Hagiographas, is the seedling that Plato foremost planted.

    Plato? s ideas were the first seedlings and roots in the hunt for the

    common good. Hobbes? , De Tocqueville? s and Marx? s Hagiographas are the

    subdivisions that have flourished from Plato? s seedlings. The thoughts and theories

    of political doctrine owe a great trade to Plato. Without Plato? s initial

    seedlings, we wouldn? Ts have the strong foundation that has allowed us to

    obtain the agency which has allowed us to come even closer to accomplishing the

    ultimate common good of society.

    This essay was written by a fellow student. You may use it as a guide or sample for writing your own paper, but remember to cite it correctly. Don’t submit it as your own as it will be considered plagiarism.

    Need a custom essay sample written specially to meet your requirements?

    Choose skilled expert on your subject and get original paper with free plagiarism report

    Order custom paper Without paying upfront

    Political Philosophy Research Paper Political philosophys. (2018, May 30). Retrieved from

    Hi, my name is Amy 👋

    In case you can't find a relevant example, our professional writers are ready to help you write a unique paper. Just talk to our smart assistant Amy and she'll connect you with the best match.

    Get help with your paper