Morality and politics have always been closely linked; even in present day politics, morality often has a part to play. Morality within politics has always been a controversial and highly debated topic by many leading political thinkers. There have been many key thinkers on the subject; however, Plato and Augustine have both an interesting and highly debated view on the argument of whether politics should be focused on morality. Both Plato and Augustine had differing views on the ideas of politics and the role that morality plays within this. These two political thinkers were around in very different times and this is reflected in their views of morality and politics. Plato was born in 429BC and came from a distinguished Athenian family, heavily involved in Athenian Politics. As a pupil of Socrates it was inevitable that Plato would be influenced by Socrates and inspired to go into politics. At the time that Plato wrote, Greece was beset by instability and Plato’s focus was to stabilise the “Polis”, meaning ‘city-state’ and mainly involving Athens and Sparta, which results in an interesting view on morality and politics. Augustine was born in 354AD, in a Rome dominated culture, and had strong Christian beliefs, which heavily influenced his views on morality and politics. This essay will examine both Plato’s and St. Augustine’s view of morality and politics, and whether or not politics should be focused on morality, before coming to a reasoned judgement. Both Plato and Augustine examine whether or not politics should be focused on morality, however, their approach to study and the outcome of their thought leads to very different results. The theory behind these two political thinkers is complex and will therefore need to be examin...
... middle of paper ...
...this Augustine attempts to keep morality and politics separate, however, a closer look reveals that Augustine attempts to remain apolitical due to the immorality surrounding politics, this immediately makes politics focused on politics, even if it is the immorality in politics. Politics should, therefore, be focused on morality. Morality has had an important role to play in the explanation and justification of many political events over the years. It is almost impossible to separate politics from morality therefore a focus of politics on morality can only serve to enhance the understanding of various political systems. Politics has been focused on morality from the era that Plato was writing through to Augustine and even in the present day, it was and remains to be important for politics to be focused on morality; therefore politics should be focused on morality.
In his philosophical text, The Republic, Plato argues that justice can only be realized by the moderation of the soul, which he claims reflects as the moderation of the city. He engages in a debate, via the persona of Socrates, with Ademantus and Gaucon on the benefit, or lack thereof, for the man who leads a just life. I shall argue that this analogy reflecting the governing of forces in the soul and in city serves as a sufficient device in proving that justice is beneficial to those who believe in, and practice it. I shall further argue that Plato establishes that the metaphorical bridge between the city and soul analogy and reality is the leader, and that in the city governed by justice the philosopher is king.
In St. Augustine’s book entitled Political Writings, one could see that Christianity plays a very important role in his view of politics. His opinion on the morality or lack of morality in politics, to me makes it more evident that Christianity persuades his views. Although it seems his writings have become quite well known and admired, not everyone fully shared his beliefs. Niccolo Machiavelli, for instance, seemed to believe in a government that was not driven by morality, but more by practicality. In, The Prince, Machiavelli stresses that the moral fibers of government should not be so soft. Like St. Augustine, his work went on to become one of the most famous books ever written about politics. Throughout the two works there are some similarities and differences regarding politics, however it their view of Christianity and morality that many find most intriguing.
Born in the year 354 on African soil, Augustine spent his earlier years in the care of his Christian mother, Monnica. He spent his time blissfully living the life of any normal child; doing mischievous deeds and remaining apathetic to life’s worries. He despised Greek education, and by extension, those who attempted to mandate a need to obtain one. But not for superficial reasons, rather, Augustine’s animosity towards his instructors was related to irrelevant subjects taught in the schools. According to him, Greek instructors failed to adequately expound on topics that hold honest meaning. One was fiction, which Augustine found to be quite contradictory to one who hoped to escape the sin of lying. However, Augustine did give positive feedback on Greek scholar’s inst...
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.
Aristotle and St. Augustine have both been influenced by Plato. Their philosophy on morality, politics, and the purpose of life has been platonically influenced. St. Augustine is the true heir of Plato because he has taken Plato’s ideal state, and revealed the implications of the lives that the citizens of the earthly city lead, in the City of God. Plato’s state is an ideal state, that would not function in reality. St. Augustine has taken Plato’s notions, and have furthered the implications of living a life that strives towards a common good. The consequences, whether negative or positive, cannot be seen in the earthly state, but can be seen in the City of God.
In Plato’s republic, a philosophical account on the kallipolis (the beautiful city) is built on the perspective of Socrates and his discussion between his companions. In the republic, the city in which ones live in depends on the soul and the character of the city one lives in. In this paper the character of human nature and politics will be discussed in how a city is ought to be by the influence of human nature and politics. Firstly, the influence of human nature on politics will be looked at, for example according to Plato on behalf of Socrates; he claims that a just soul creates a just society, where it is human nature to be just, that influences in creating a just political system. Secondly, politics influences human nature, where in the republic when the discussion of guardians starts out between Socrates and the companions, there is political thought discussed between them, where Socrates wants to create the perfect guardians through specific training in all types of skills instituted to creating a perfect protector. Lastly, human nature is human soul if the soul is just the city is going to be just. It is the human nature which has created communities without any political thought put in place; it political thought that forms rules and laws. Thus, human nature is part of the individual understanding of its society that creates an understanding of how one ought to be, which in turns creates rules and laws that is essentially viewed as politics.
In every civilized society you will always find many varying forms of morality and values, especially in the United States of America. In Societies such as these you find a mosaic of differing religions, cultures, political alignments, and socio economic backgrounds which suggests that morality and values are no different. In Friedrich Nietzsche’s book, Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche discusses morality and the two categories that you will find at the very basis of all varieties of morality. One category of morality focuses on the “Higher Man” and his superiority to all those under him and his caste. The second system is derived from those of a lower caste that may be used by those in higher castes to further themselves and society. These categories as described by Nietzsche are known as Master Morality and Slave Morality. In this modern time in our culture, morality is becoming a more polarizing topic than ever before. Morality is often times held synonymous with religious practice and faith, although morality is an important part of religion and faith, everyone has some variation of morality no matter their religious affiliation or lack thereof. Friedrich Nietzsche’s theories on morality, Master and Slave Morality, describe to categories of morality which can be found at the very basis of most variations of morality. Master and Slave morality differ completely from each other it is not uncommon to find blends of both categories from one person to another. I believe the Master Morality and Slave Morality theories explain not only religious affiliations but also political alignments and stances on certain social issues in American society. By studying the origins and meanings of Nietzsche’s theories, comparing these theories to c...
Plato’s Republic introduces a multitude of important and interesting concepts, of topics ranging from music, to gender equality, to political regime. For this reason, many philosophers and scholars still look back to The Republic in spite of its age. Yet one part that stands out in particular is Plato’s discussion of the soul in the fourth book of the Republic. Not only is this section interesting, but it was also extremely important for all proceeding moral philosophy, as Plato’s definition has been used ever since as a standard since then. Plato’s confabulation on the soul contains three main portions: defining each of the three parts and explanation of their functions, description of the interaction of the parts, and then how the the parts and their interaction motivate action. This essay will investigate each segment, and seek to explain their importance.
One of Plato's goals in The Republic, as he defines the Just City, is to illustrate what kind of leader and government could bring about the downfall of his ideal society. To prevent pride and greed in leaders would ensure that they would not compromise the well being of the city to obtain monetary gains or to obtain more power. If this state of affairs becomes firmly rooted in the society, the fall to Tyranny begins. This is the most dangerous state that the City become on i...
Virtue and morality are concepts so imperative to fruitful government operation, that our first president unequivocally enforced their importance in his farewell address in 1796. He states that, “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports and that “It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government.” (Washington,p 7) If one of our Founding fathers found the presence of virtue and morality in our society important enough to address in his final political speech, why then would we see fit to disregard them? Morality and virtue must remain intertwined with government if the nation is to continue toward greatness; the removal of such qualities can only lead to eventual destruction as “…reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” (Washington,
The Republic is an examination of the "Good Life"; the harmony reached by applying pure reason and justice. The ideas and arguments of Plato center on the social settings of an ideal republic - those that lead each person to the most perfect possible life for him. Socrates was Plato's early mentor in real life. As a tribute to his teacher, Plato uses Socrates in several of his works and dialogues. Socrates moderates the discussion throughout, as Plato's mouthpiece. Through Socrates' powerful and brilliant questions and explanations on a series of topics, the reader comes to understand what Plato's model society would look like. The basic plan of the Republic is to draw an analogy between the operation of society as a whole and the life of any individual human being. In this paper I will present Plato’s argument that the soul is divides into three parts. I will examine what these parts are, and I will also explain his arguments behind this conclusion. Finally, I will describe how Plato relates the three parts of the soul to a city the different social classes within that city.
Plato’s thoughts about power and reason are much different than Aristotle. Plato looked at the meaning of justice and different types of governments. Plato looked into four different types of governments
The protagonists in the films Kinsey by Bill Condon and Thank You for Smoking by Jason Reitman are two men who are cut from very different styles of cloth. In Kinsey, the titular character uses logical discourse and gathered statistics in an attempt to remove the shackles of moral prudery from the subject of human sexuality for the betterment of humanity. On the other hand, the central character in Thank You for Smoking is a lobbyist for the tobacco industry who uses logical fallacy and rhetoric to obscure the health risks of tobacco use because he is extraordinarily good at it, and additionally he gets paid handsomely. As divergent as these two men are in their intentions, they both show passionate skill in asserting their claims against tough opposition. Moreover, both characters argumentative styles reveal their mutual apprehension of the power that morality and rhetoric hold in shaping public opinion.
The concept of written laws and their place in government is one of the key points of discussion in the Platonic dialog the Statesman. In this philosophical work, a dialog on the nature of the statesmanship is discussed in order to determine what it is that defines the true statesman from all of those who may lay claim to this title. This dialog employs different methods of dialectic as Plato begins to depart from the Socratic method of argumentation. In this dialog Socrates is replaced as the leader of the discussion by the stranger who engages the young Socrates in a discussion about the statesman. Among the different argumentative methods that are used by Plato in this dialog division and myth play a central role in the development of the arguments put forth by the stranger as he leads the young Socrates along the dialectic path toward the nature of the statesman. The statesman is compared to a shepherd or caretaker of the human “flock.” The conclusion that comes from division says that the statesman is one who: Issues commands (with a science) of his own intellect over the human race. This is the first conclusion that the dialog arrives at via the method of division. The dialog, however, does not end here as the stranger suggests that their definition is still wanting of clarity because there are still some (physicians, farmers, merchants, etc…) who would lay claim to the title of shepherds of humanity. For this reason a new approach to the argument must be undertaken: “then we must begin by a new starting-point and travel by a different road” (Statesman 268 D.)
In Plato’s Republic, the main argument is dedicated to answering Glaucon and Adeimantus, who question the reason for just behavior. They argue it is against one’s self-interest to be just, but Plato believes the behavior is in fact in one’s self-interest because justice is inherently good. Plato tries to prove this through his depiction of an ideal city, which he builds from the ground up, and ultimately concludes that justice requires the philosopher to perform the task of ruling. Since the overall argument is that justice pays, it follows that it would be in the philosopher’s self-interest to rule – however, Plato also states that whenever people with political power believe they benefit from ruling, a good government is impossible. Thus, those who rule regard the task of ruling as not in their self-interest, but something intrinsically evil. This is where Plato’s argument that justice is in one’s self-interest is disturbed. This paper will discuss the idea that justice is not in one’s self-interest, and thus does not pay.