Broad Political Theory Questions

selection on materialism in Feuerbach, Marx adopts sensuousness and toyuality as the main objects of contemplation. This implicitly imp hypocrisys that domain is inte be on narcissistic issues which result to respective(prenominal) pleasure. Objectivity is also conceiveed in regards to whether t curiosityerity can remain objective. Marxs side of meat is of critical importance though the get on whether it has changed the world system debatable. Lockes philosophy has play a larger-than- feeling part in the present twenty-four hours events. A look at the American constitution serves as a arrow to this date.Even the unites nations charter on tender rights seems to altogetherow made reference to Lockes work particularly on property rights. Locke seems too be an advocate of a free decree in which individuals get to benefit equitably. though this has non been achieved, the nightclub has made peculiar improvements towards grasping certain universal endeavors like the millenary development goals. The pursuit of objectivity as implied by Marx is and so a merge feature of the cardinal philosophers. Plato scarcely construe the world while attempting to achieve his goal of indicating or underscoring the importance of the republic.Whereas, the pursuit if arbiter is of noble consideration, it remains to be seen whether, it has been achieved or whether it leave laughingstock ever be achieved. The opinion that the Plato philosophy has had remains persistent and unbroken. The academy the philosopher opened in Athens remains a pillar of the works under figure of speechn by the scholar. The influences of Plato ar known to curb compete a significant role in shaping various religious developments entirelywhere a long period of time. If jurist is to be attained, then objectivity is a prerequisite, a situation observed by Marx. 2. Machiavelli used hypocrisy to lay military blockade on the Christian trustfulness.The philosopher was always against religion apart from the support he gave to those intending to wheel on its way. Christianity is ground on what its faith c in all hefty morals. As Machiavelli puts it, ethical motive is non an issue if it cannot be justified. Machiavelli believed that its the end that justifies the gist. Machiavelli motto every piece of religion as an act of propaganda. Machiavelli thought that the Christian faith would cotton on before the world it egotism came to an end. Through social relativism, Machiavelli claimed the absence of the Christian god.In this construction, it was claimed that since God neer existed to offer universal morals, then thither were no morals pourboire be followed. Socrates is believed to sustain carried a study on what constituted holiness. This in it egotism presented an act of impiety. piece of music facing a case in Xenophon, Socrates twice objected to using a prophesy sign ass he fain his defense. Socrates in another case chose to allay Euthyph ro instead of saving himself. In short, the bespeak focus rests on the accusation against Socrates as introducing new gods in the town. The two philosophers appe bed to rush veered off social godly underpinnings.The fact that Socrates is accused of bringing gods to town serves as a pointer to the fact that thither are respected and un-respected gods. Machiavellis refuter of the Christian faith also presents the philosopher as a person that objects to intimately crafted societal religious leanings. It is then held that these two philosophers play a role in jeopardizing well regarded traditions during their time. 3. Socrates uses the human tendency to corruption to broadcast his preferred sign of leadership. Socrates points to timocracy, democracy, oligarchy, and tyranny as unacceptable forms of de destinationinement.Socrates finally submitted that if ruling was to attain the best for confederacy, then it should be left to philosopher leaders. In Socrates thinking, the p hilosophers were the most just and to the lowest degree susceptible to graft. The scholar augmented the property by claiming that the philosophers were in a seat to rule in pursuit of the peachy for the city as opposed to for the self. In a legitimate society, in that respect is no room for societal divisions all citizens should wassail same level benefits. Thomas Hobbes views on the best possible form or structure of government were premised on a society guide by a causalityful leviathan.Based on social charter theories, the focus remains on the earth of a strong centre of administration. This type of government as proposed by Hobbes exit guarantee the security and welfare of the battalion. whatever abuses that whitethorn arise as a result of the leadership by the leviathan essential be accepted. This is premised on the fact that the the great unwashed by massting up the leviathan, concord to cede their immanent power. Socrates manages to drive to his peers that a government is a role vie best by community precipitous with self interest.On the other hand, wizard gets the icon that Hobbes was driving home the sine qua non to read a powerful leadership that was not answerable to people. In the Socrates society individuals would have a say, while in the Hobbesian society, individuals would not hold a say on public issues. 4. Thomas Hobbes believed that human desires, self-seeking interests, pleasures and pains of a moment played a key role in decision making. These factors among others imply tat the human spirit cannot be relied upon in passing play judgment on a spot of issues as distortions may occur.Hobbes focal point in coincidence to human nature remains premised on the concept of motivation. Hobbes dictum man as a self centered and keen-sightedly calculating individual. It is thus highly unlikely that people go forth pursue common good. Individuals due to their selfish stances are thus destined pass on pursue personal goals even if this means putting the goals of the rest at stake. In Hobbes thinking, common good is thus an illusion. In reference to Plato, the pursuit of happiness had to lie with the observation of virtues and comm scarcely accepted doctrines.Plato held the sophistic view concerning knowledge which byword it as subjective and relative. This, in reference to Plato, undermined morality. It thus led Plato into believing that there was no infallible truth. Plato failed to see the point why a person who could not guess the self and rules of morality would be move to look beyond the principle of self actualization. In short, if morality does not take pity of individual interests, then individuals are not bound to observe its dictates. Plato cut mans nature as rational and expected society to be organized in tandem with requirements of niceness on rational principles.As a rational be, a human being knows or is in a stick to pronounce every case scenario and pursues what best serves the interests desired by the individual in question. 5. On the basis of Aristotle, happiness is not primarily premised upon an exercise of virtue but instead on the administering of an ideal adduce. In a nut shell, the interests of all are intimately knit together such that the interests of all resemble the interests of a single individual in the republic. In microscopic terms, all individual acts are for the common good. This unselfish stance remains questionable as it is unenviable in practice top find such solid grounds.Niccolo Machiavelli is famous for the advice attached to the monarch with a view to power monopolization. Machiavelli advocated for policies that would discourage mass activism in policy-making affairs. Machiavelli believed the citizenry was well exercising its energies in private practice in the do leaving out political and assert activities. In his book, the Prince, Machiavelli urged the monarch to use power and force to achieve the government goals . Machiavelli held the view that political aims could not be led by a single set of religious or moral ideas.From the above two opinions, it emerges that there are interests to be protected by any state or society. The societal or state claims are wide varied as the ruled and the rulers may conflict on interests. Even if there were no conflicts, mute issues regarding approach would arise. This puts the leaders, the few, against the ruled, the galore(postnominal). On this basis, Machiavelli sought to have the ruler have enormous debt instrument in making decisions as the many could spoil the aspirations of a republic. However, Aristotle envisaged a scenario whereby the interests are melted down to reflect a single position, a position difficult to r for each cardinal.Hence this implied that the leaders had to take a position that they thought would serve societal interests. 6. Aristotle viewed natural justice as a finical species of political justice. Inn this view, Aristotle believed that a society had to enlist distributive and corrective measures to insure societal cohesion. Aristotle claimed further, that the best regime may not after all the one that observes the rule of law in its operations. On the basis of Aristotle every civilized society had a set of rules and regulations it used to govern behaviour.In Aristotles views, civilized society emerged as a result of the emerging need to develop laws to regulate certain aspects of life within distinguishable societies. Thomas Hobbes uses the term leviathan to capture the incarnate will of people. These people come together to form a government that retains the sovereign dictum. To Thomas Hobbes, joint will is the major force behind the formation of a civilized society. The people realized that they had collective desire, to achieve the distinguishable desires they saw it worthy to establish an authority to take care of their needs.The biggest need being the provision of security so that each ind ividual gets to go about their military control without undue disturbance. The differences appear minute in this case as Aristotles view of a civilized society was based on the need for cohesiveness in society. On the other hand, the need for civility in reference to Thomas Hobbes rested on the drive to protect collective will. The act of protecting collective will is almost in line with rule societal aspects so as to necessitate compliance. However, this should not be misconstrued to mean that the two mean the same thing as only similarities exist.7. Aristotle believed that family existed just for the sake of political life. Further to this, Aristotle supposedly viewed political relation as practiced for friendship purposes. Contrary to this position, Aristotle discussed family dealings as types of friendships which are used as designs of political rule. He thus obscures the ordinance of the dealinghips that he advocates in politics. The practice of politics must observe fri endly relations just as a family does. In the terms of Aristotle, politics is thus useable in strengthening family ties.The family integrates people into a family and thus aids the formation or the commencement of political life. John Lockes 2nd treatise of government aimed to show that there was a legitimate foundation among people and power. This was captured by the social resolution theory. Locke believed that a political society is not a form of family. In this regard, Locke was nerve-wracking to discredit the patriarchal kingship. Locke went further to claim that a magistrates position on a case could not be compared o a fathers on a childs case. Locke saw two distinct societies in this scenario.Locke further claimed that the creation of the two societies was different and meant to achieve different goals. In Lockes observation, the political societys end is to possess property unlike a familial one that aims at top children. The major separation point betwixt the two sch olars is premised on the aims of the two societies and how they are formed. Whereas Aristotle assumed that the two societies pursue one aim, Locke forgively shows that the aims are distinct in the two societies. The reasons for formation are evenly found to be different as opposed to the views posited by Aristotle. 8.Lockes position on money is viewed in relation to the right to ownership of property. In Lockes opinion, each individual had the right to beget property through hard work. However, Locke only saw it essential that an individual amasses what they only need and ensure that in that pursuit, their bray does not become destructive. In precise terms, what Locke stood for was acquisitions of needs. He was opposed to excessive ingathering of wealth which defines the current society. Locke appeared to assume that all things were naturally usable to everybody and thus objected to the systems of aggregation.An accumulation beyond what one could use at the time amounted to a cquiring an unfair share. Aristotle saw the necessity of money in human life. However, he made a number of proposals regarding currency. Aristotle saw money as a common measure of al things available for consumption. In a nut shell, Aristotle saw money as the surest way of equalizing all consumables. In Aristotles terms, money was necessary to ensure a just and fair exchange system. The philosopher thus argued that money came up in a bid to comfort the problem of exchange.In Aristotles terms good money had to be durable, portable, divisible, and intrinsically valuable. On the basis of the above presentation, it is crystal clear that Locke saw money as a potential for unfair practices. It could only be fair if each individual would stick a rightful amount so that everybodys interests are taken care of. In reference to Aristotle, money was good only if it could be used for structural purposes. Aristotle did not envisage money to be used in a commercialized manner. This is because of what Aristotle perceived as the natures limited nature.