Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
aristotle writes in his essay politics
aristotle's politics essay
locke political theory
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: aristotle writes in his essay politics
Studying the nature of politics involves the analysis of a plethora of various individual components that altogether shape the overall political theories of the great political philosophers throughout history. Politics is the pursuit of achieving a strong, just, and successful system of governance, which encompasses the distribution of power and economic structure. The progression and evolution of political theory is made evident through the study of great minds such as Aristotle, Machiavelli, Locke, and even more recent entities like those of the founding fathers of the United States. As civilization and societies have advanced, the political systems that govern those civilizations have also adapted to meet the necessities of the time. Despite the large span of time between the eras of these philosophers, there are certain aspects of their works and theories have been timeless and are common amongst them. All have analyzed innate human behavior and its effects of political systems. Themes of human nature, justice and virtue, freedom, and the roles and rights of citizens have been common components to name a few. More narrowly however, words like liberty, or freedom, virtue, and selfishness have had resounding significance in all of these philosophers’ works. These terms are rather vague out of context and thus require a more in depth investigation to understand their significance in political theory. First and foremost, the most resounding theme in all of politics and the work of the mentioned political theorists is human nature, which includes man’s inherent and innate tendencies and behavior. It seems it is generally agreed upon that humans are, by nature, selfish creatures that act and decide in a way that they rationalize w... ... middle of paper ... ...itizen to not only understand their rights and liberties, but to employ them in a manner that benefits the society and in turn themselves. Politics is an ever-advancing science that pursues perfection in a matter where perfection may never be found but a huge problem that amplifies this in modern society is the ignorance of large numbers of people, and it is one that can be fixed through emphasis of politics in education. It may be argued that politics, since it defines the way we live, is as important of a science as mathematics and biology. It can be introduced at an early age and allow for kids, teenagers, and college students to become more engaged in political science early on. We have seen many great inventions and ideas from young minds in the realm of technology, and it’s about time that a young brilliant mind finds an improvement to our political structure.
Niccolo Machiavelli, John Locke, and John Stuart Mill present three distinct models of government in their works The Prince, Second Treatise of Government, and Utilitarianism. From an examination of these models it is possible to infer their views about human nature and its connection to the purpose of government. A key to comparing these views can be found in an examination of their ideas of morality as an intermediary between government and human nature. Whether this morality must be inferred from their writings or whether it is explicitly mentioned, it differs among the three in its definition, source, and purpose.
Examining the texts of Aristotle’s “Nicomachean Ethics” and “Politics” side by side, one is bound to find parallels between his reasoning with regard to the individual and to the state. In “Nicomachean Ethics” Aristotle discusses happiness, virtue, and the good life on an individual level and lays out necessary provisions for the good life of a person. He maintains that virtue is a necessary element of happiness: a man will be happy if he has virtues of justice, courage, and temperance, each constituting a balance between the extremes. But this requirement of virtue for the happy life goes beyond the individual level, as we see it in “Politics”. There, Aristotle claims that man is by nature a “political animal” , and for that reason he can only achieve the above-mentioned virtues as part of a state. And since the city is formed by many individuals, the virtue of the state is constituted by the individual virtues of its citizens. It is therefore clear that fulfillment of requirements for the happy life of an individual, namely being virtuous and self-sufficient, is equally necessary for the state as a whole in order to be happy. We thus see that the virtue of a state is directly linked to the virtue of an individual, and that therefore the means of achieving the former will run parallel with those of the latter.
A longstanding debate in human history is what to do with power and what is the best way to rule. Who should have power, how should one rule, and what its purpose should government serve have always been questions at the fore in civilization, and more than once have sparked controversy and conflict. The essential elements of rule have placed the human need for order and structure against the human desire for freedom, and compromising between the two has never been easy. It is a question that is still considered and argued to this day. However, the argument has not rested solely with military powers or politicians, but philosophers as well. Two prominent voices in this debate are Plato and Machiavelli, both of whom had very different ideas of government's role in the lives of its people. For Plato, the essential service of government is to allow its citizens to live in their proper places and to do the things that they are best at. In short, Plato's government reinforces the need for order while giving the illusion of freedom. On the other hand, Machiavelli proposes that government's primary concern is to remain intact, thereby preserving stability for the people who live under it. The feature that both philosophers share is that they attempt to compromise between stability and freedom, and in the process admit that neither can be totally had.
In Chapter 4 of Political Thinking; the Perennial Questions, Tinder raises the question of whether social order can be maintained without power. The argument of whether humans are estranged or naturally good plays a large part in deciding this question. Tinder hits on two major topics before coming to his ultimate decision. The first is that human nature can be linked to reason as both a cognitive and a moral tool that can be used to live without a specific source of power. In other words, people with a strong sense of morality can suffice without the need of an organized government. It is then argued that the concept of natural occurring interests between a society successfully taps into the fear that social order is spontaneous, disregarding whether people are generally good or bad. The example of free enterprise is given, regarding humans as selfish and materialistic. With this an idea for government to protect property and create stability in currency arose while trying not to encroach on personal freedoms.
Each day, billions of people throughout the world affirm their commitment to a specific idea; to be part of a society. While this social contract is often overlooked by most citizens, their agreement to it nevertheless has far-reaching consequences. Being a member of society entails relinquishing self-autonomy to a higher authority, whose aim should be to promote the overall good of the populace. While making this decision to become part of a commonwealth is usually performed without explicit deliberation, there is a common consensus amongst philosophers that something unique to the human experience is the driving force behind this decision. Contained within this something are highly contested points of debate amongst both past and contemporary political philosophers. Two such philosophers are Thomas Hobbes and Thomas Aquinas. Each of these political writers provide detailed arguments regarding the concept of natural law, the role that reason plays in this law, whether some laws are considered truly rational, and why some people choose not to follow certain principles even when they recognize them to be rational. By analyzing each of these arguments, we will arrive at the conclusion that even though the rational principles that reason provides us can easily be disregarded by the populace, that we can still find a common good within promulgating rational doctrine.
...quals for political rule, the theoretical possibility of absolute rule becomes a crucial part of it. This causes difficulties because if Aristotle values citizenship and political participation as vital for attaining eudaimonia, then the possibility of absolute rule is clearly inconsistent with his standard of justice as virtuous and capable citizens would have to give up their citizenship. Conversely, Aristotle would argue that surrendering citizenships can be done without loss of virtue or eudaimonia as both types of rule are equally just. Fundamentally, both provide outstanding virtuosity, ability and rule in the interest of all which is crucial for obtaining a good government and eudaimon life. Thus, even in the most just state, the value of political participation is such that it should be accepted when offered although it is not essential for the eudaimon life
Theories of human nature, as the term would ever so subtly suggest, are at best only individual assertions of the fundamental and intrinsic compositions of mankind, and should be taken as such. Indeed it can be said that these assertions are both many and widespread, and yet too it can be said that there are a select few assertions of the nature of man that rise above others when measured by historical persistence, renown, and overall applicability. These eclectic discourses on the true nature of man have often figured largely in theories of political science, typically functioning as foundational structures to broader claims and arguments. The diversification of these ideological assertions, then, would explain the existence of varying theories
Is the purpose of government today, similar to that of philosophers of the past, or has there been a shift in political thought? This essay will argue that according to Machiavelli’s The Prince, the purpose of government is to ensure the stability of the state as well as the preservation of the established ruler’s control, and that the best form of government should take the form of an oligarchy. In contrast, in his book, Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes argues that the purpose of government should be to preserve the peace and security of men and, that the best form of government would be an absolute monarchy which would sanction such conditions. This essay will utilize themes of glory, material advantage, peace and stability to illustrate
Throughout Federalist 10, James Madison argues that we must allow people to separate into groups according to their needs and beliefs regarding the political system of our country. These factions will protect interests and create an elevated government comprised of the most knowledgeable and educated men to protect the citizenry. His arguments reflect his status as a wealthy and educated landowner that must protect himself in the face of the common people. I will argue that Madison’s argument is flawed, which he alludes to in his writing, because he neglects to acknowledge that people are self-interested and therefore, morally corrupt. This self-interest will be the downfall of Madison’s government as private interests take root and the will of the people is ignored in all places but elections.
In the United States there are many different power relations. Many people argue that one of these political theories are better than the other one. Their is a total of five power theories to explain the power structure in the United States (Rules). In politics political participation, political institutions and public policy is a big part in politics. The political theories that are presented are Pluralism, State Autonomy, Elite Theory,
John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau all dealt with the issue of political freedom within a society. John Locke's “The Second Treatise of Government”, Mill's “On Liberty”, and Rousseau’s “Discourse On The Origins of Inequality” are influential and compelling literary works which while outlining the conceptual framework of each thinker’s ideal state present divergent visions of the very nature of man and his freedom. The three have somewhat different views regarding how much freedom man ought to have in political society because they have different views regarding man's basic potential for inherently good or evil behavior, as well as the ends or purpose of political societies.
Political Philosophy is typically a study of a wide range of topics such as, justice, liberty, equality, rights, law, politics and the application of a codified law. Depending on what the philosophy is, it usually tends to be a very sensitive and a personal ideology that an individual holds within the reality of their existence. Several of the fundamental topics of political philosophy shape up the society that we live in as these specific topics and their implementation by the state ensures a legitimate government. In Political Philosophy, the aforesaid concepts or topics are evaluated and analyzed with tremendous depth in context to their history and intent. Furthermore, in a rather colloquial sense, political philosophy is generally a point of view which after some deep thinking asks questions such as, what are the government’s duties? Is it legitimate? What makes it legitimate? What are the duties of its citizens? What are their rights? Are they protected? So on and so forth. In the following paper, I will canvass my political philosophy and elaborate on my reasoning behind it.
Aristotle, Locke, and Hobbes all place a great deal of importance on the state of nature and how it relates to the origin of political bodies. Each one, however, has a different conception of what a natural state is, and ultimately, this leads to a different conception of what a government should be, based on this natural state. Aristotle’s feelings on the natural state of man is much different than that of modern philosophers and leads to a construction of government in and of itself; government for Hobbes and Locke is a departure from the natural state of man.
John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty and John Locke’s The Second Treatise of Government are influential literary works while which outlining the theoretical framework of each thinkers optimal state propose two conflicting visions of the very essence of man and his freedom. Locke and Mill have completely different views when it comes to how much freedom man should have in political society because they have obtained different views about man’s potential of inheriting pure or evil behavior.
Boucher, D and Kelly, P. (2009). Political Thinkers: From Socrates to the Present. United States: Oxford University Press Inc., New York.