Political Philosophy Essays - Philosophy, Political Philosophy

Political Philosophy 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