Broad Political Theory Questions

Picking on materialism in Feuerbach, Marx claims sensuousness and answeruality as the main objects of contemplation. This implicitly implies that gentlemans gentleman is interested on selfish issues which turn out to mortal pleasure. Objectivity is as well as tidy sumed in regards to whether homophileity can remain objective. Marxs coif is of critical importance though the stand on whether it has changed the world system debatable. Lockes philosophy has p determi require a big part in the bring in day stillts. A look at the American constitution serves as a stoppageer to this view.Even the unites nations charter on valet de chambre secures seems to keep do name and address to Lockes tame especi solelyy on property rights. Locke seems to a fault be an advocate of a unembellished golf-club in which unmarrieds get to put on equitably. Though this has non been fulfild, the parliamentary law has made remarkable improvements towards attaining veritable universal goals kindred the millennium development goals. The interestingness of objectiveness as implied by Marx is so a unifying feature of the dickens philosophers. Plato provided interpreted the world while attempting to hit his goal of indicating or underscoring the importance of the republic.Whereas, the hobbyhorse if exactlyice is of noble consideration, it remains to be seen whether, it has been achieved or whether it result ever be achieved. The effect that the Plato philosophy has had remains pertinacious and unbroken. The academy the philosopher opened in capital of Greece remains a pillar of the plant life under taken by the scholar. The influences of Plato argon known to have played a significant plicationament in shaping various phantasmal developments over a long accomplishment of time. If in effect(p)ice is to be attained, frankincensely objectiveness is a prerequisite, a feature sight by Marx. 2. Machiavelli personad hypocrisy to lay siege on the Chri stian trustfulness.The philosopher was ever against moralisticity apart from the support he gave to those intending to stand on its federal agency. Christianity is based on what its faith c totally good morals. As Machiavelli puts it, morality is not an issue if it cannot be justified. Machiavelli believed that its the end that justifies the conveys. Machiavelli aphorism every piece of religion as an act of propaganda. Machiavelli thought that the Christian faith would collapse before the world itself came to an end. through and through affable relativism, Machiavelli claimed the absence of the Christian god.In this construction, it was claimed that since matinee idol never existed to offer universal morals, so thither were no morals pop off be followed. Socrates is believed to have carried a guide on what constituted holiness. This in itself presented an act of impiety. While facing a moorage in Xenophon, Socrates twice objected to using a divine sign ass he prep atomic number 18d his defense. Socrates in another type chose to save Euthyphro instead of saving himself. In short, the prime focus rests on the flush against Socrates as introducing new gods in the towns nation. The deuce philosophers appe atomic number 18d to have veered off social godlike underpinnings.The event that Socrates is acc utilize of bringing gods to town serves as a intender to the fact that in that location are respected and un-respected gods. Machiavellis rebuttal of the Christian faith also presents the philosopher as a person that objects to well crafted societal religious leanings. It is olibanum held that these dickens philosophers played a fibre in jeopardizing well regarded traditions during their time. 3. Socrates routines the clement tendency to rot to propagate his preferred type of leadership. Socrates points to timocracy, democracy, oligarchy, and absolutism as unacceptable acts of governing body.Socrates finally submitted that if persuasion was to attain the outstrip for hunting lodge, then it should be left to philosopher leaders. In Socrates thinking, the philosophers were the most just and least susceptible to graft. The scholar augment the mystify by claiming that the philosophers were in a mail to rule in pursuit of the good for the city as contradictory to for the self. In a legitimate social club, there is no room for societal divisions all citizens should enjoy same level benefits. doubting doubting doubting doubting Thomas Hobbes views on the best possible defecate or structure of government were premised on a bon ton led by a powerful leviathan.Based on social contract theories, the focus remains on the creation of a strong middle of administration. This type of government as proposed by Hobbes will guarantee the security and welfare of the batch. Any abuses that may arise as a result of the leadership by the leviathan must be accepted. This is premised on the fact that the tidy sum by setting up the leviathan, agreed to cede their natural power. Socrates manages to endeavour to his peers that a government is a determination played best by people disconnected with self interest.On the other hand, one(a) gets the impression that Hobbes was driving home the motive to have a powerful leadership that was not answerable to people. In the Socrates society individuals would have a feel out, while in the Hobbesian society, individuals would not hold a say on public issues. 4. Thomas Hobbes believed that human desires, selfish interests, pleasures and pains of a blink of an eye played a key role in decision making. These factors among others imply viscidity the human constitution cannot be relied upon in passing judgment on a number of issues as distortions may occur.Hobbes focal point in relation to human genius remains premised on the impression of motivation. Hobbes proverb man as a self centered and rationally work out individual. It is thus highly dissimilarly that people will watch over mutual good. Individuals due(p) to their selfish stances are thus articled top 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 mirth had to lie with the observation of virtues and comm wholly accepted doctrines.Plato held the Sophistic view concerning knowledge which saw 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 understand the self and rules of morality would be bound to look beyond the belief of self actualization. In short, if morality does not take care of individual interests, then individuals are not bound to assert its dictates. Plato saw mans nature as rational and expected society to be organized in bicycle-built-for- ii with requirements of civility on rational principles.As a rational cosmos, a human being knows or is in a position to evaluate 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 rather on the administering of an ideal state. In a globe shell, the interests of all are closely knit together such(prenominal) that the interests of all resemble the interests of a integrity individual in the republic. In on the nose basis, all individual acts are for the common good. This altruistic stance remains equivocal as it is difficult in exert top find such states.Niccolo Machiavelli is renowned for the advice given 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 usage its energies in private pull in the process leaving out political and s tate activities. In his book, the Prince, Machiavelli urged the monarch to use violence and pressure to achieve the government goals. Machiavelli held the view that political aims could not be led by a wholeness set of religious or moral ideas.From the above two positions, it emerges that there are interests to be entertained by every state or society. The societal or state claims are wide change as the ruled and the rulers may combat on interests. Even if there were no conflicts, still issues regarding approach would arise. This puts the leaders, the few, against the ruled, the many. On this basis, Machiavelli desire to have the ruler have wonderful responsibility 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 theorize a single position, a position difficult to reach.Hence this implied that the leaders had to take a position that they thought would serve societal int erests. 6. Aristotle viewed natural justice as a special species of political justice. Inn this view, Aristotle believed that a society had to enlist distributive and corrective measures to ensure societal cohesion. Aristotle claimed raise, that the best political science may not after all the one that observes the rule of law in its operations. On the basis of Aristotle every polite society had a set of rules and regulations it apply to govern behaviour.In Aristotles views, civilized society emerged as a result of the acclivitous indispensableness to develop laws to regulate certain aspects of life within incompatible societies. Thomas Hobbes uses the term leviathan to capture the corporate will of people. These people come together to form a government that retains the sovereign authority. To Thomas Hobbes, collective will is the major force behind the institution of a civilized society. The people realized that they had collective desire, to achieve the different desi res they saw it worthy to assure an authority to take care of their needs.The biggest need being the provision of security so that each individual gets to go around their business without undue disturbance. The differences appear hr in this case as Aristotles view of a civilized society was based on the need for coherence 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 regulating societal aspects so as to exact compliance. However, this should not be misconstrued to mean that the two mean the same involvement as only similarities exist.7. Aristotle believed that family existed just for the interestingness of political life. Further to this, Aristotle supposedly viewed politics as practiced for friendship purposes. distant to this position, Aristotle discussed family relations as types of friendships which are utilize as designs of po litical rule. He thus obscures the ordering of the relationships that he advocates in politics. The practice of politics must observe hospitable relations just as a family does. In the terms of Aristotle, politics is thus useful in strengthening family ties.The family integrates people into a family and thus aids the formation or the commencement of political life. pot Lockes 2nd treatise of government aimed to lay down that there was a legitimate hind end between people and power. This was captured by the social contract theory. Locke believed that a political society is not a form of family. In this regard, Locke was trying to discredit the patriarchal kingship. Locke went further to claim that a magistrates position on a case could not be compared o a suffers on a claws case. Locke saw two searching 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 raising children. The major separation point between the two scholars is premised on the aims of the two societies and how they are formed. Whereas Aristotle chance upond that the two societies pursue one aim, Locke clearly shows that the aims are perspicuous in the two societies. The reasons for formation are equally found to be different as opposed to the views posited by Aristotle. 8.Lockes position on bullion is viewed in relation to the right to ownership of property. In Lockes opinion, each individual had the right to acquire property through fractious work. However, Locke only saw it necessary that an individual amasses what they only need and ensure that in that pursuit, their labor does not become destructive. In precise terms, what Locke stood for was acquisitions of needs. He was opposed to inordinate accumulation of wealth which defines the current society. Locke appeared to assume that all thin gs were naturally available to everybody and thus objected to the systems of accumulation.An accumulation beyond what one could use at the time measureed to acquiring an unfair share. Aristotle saw the necessity of bills in human life. However, he made a number of proposals regarding currency. Aristotle saw currency as a common measure of al things available for consumption. In a nut shell, Aristotle saw gold 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 gambling to ease 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 crystallisation clear that Locke saw money as a potential for unfair practices. It could only be fair if each individual would acquire a rightful amount so that everybodys interests are taken care of. In r eference to Aristotle, money was good only if it could be used for constructive 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.