Philosophy Politics :Describe The political system under which the people of a society live does not fall on them from the sky.
Discussion Topic : Philosophy Politics The political system under which the people of a society live does not fall on them from the sky. It is something that is both created and maintained by the people a a society. Thus, it can be altered or completely destroyed by the people of a society. Facts such as these take up to the philosophical question of what sort of political system should we have? Over the past 2000 years philosophers have presented many different ideas in answer to this question. But only a few have survived the test of time. And although philosophy has often been described as an “armchair” activity, consider how much the following philosophical ideas have shaped the world that we live in today: democracy, totalitarianism, communism, socialism, capitalism, rights, duties, liberty, and equality. Many people, over so many years, have been thinking about the questions: “What is the best political system?” and “What would a truly just society look like?” So it is remarkable that we have narrowed down the serious possibilities to so few. In this discussion you have a chance to try and narrow the possibilities down even further as you consider some of the most famous and lasting issues that political philosophers have debated for the last 2000 years. Keep in mind that although the questions are clearly academic, they are also practical. For our society, like all others, is going to take a stand on these questions, one way or another. The political system and the society that we have at any given point in time is our living answer to the questions that philosophers raise. Questions Should there be a Test for Voting? Plato was opposed to the political philosophy of democracy. Why did Plato dislike democracy so much? Reflecting on those points where he thought the Sophists were correct, and then combining these with Platos basic disagreement with the Sophists, can help us to find an answer to this question. The Sophists claimed that people make their political decisions based on personal bias, peer pressure, and socialization, rather than on fact, reason and independent thought. Although Plato did not agree with the Sophists that people have to live this way, he agreed with the Sophists that most people do live like this. Since most people live in their perceptions, anyone who can learn the science of rhetoric, a science that is designed to mold and manipulate perceptions, can put these people under his or her control. Democracy is a political philosophy that says power should go equally to all the citizens. The citizens will then, through elections, give special power to their elected representatives. Because Plato saw democracy as a system that gives power to individuals based on their powers of persuasion, and their ability to manipulate the system to their advantage, he saw democracy as blending well with sophist philosophy and as a form of government which will lead to gross injustice. The trial and the execution of Socrates were, for Plato, clear examples of what democracy yields. Because the people were allowed to make the decisions, in Platos eyes, the most just of all men was found guilty and executed for the crime of being the most unjust of men. This would be fine if the Sophists were right that we could never have anything better than opinion within our political thinking. And that, further, whether we like it or not, might is the only thing that will ever make right. But, as we have seen, Plato tried to show that these radical conclusions of the Sophists were wrong. He tried to show that there is a truth about justice which, if we discover it, can be brought into the world to make it a more just and fair place. Plato thought truth, rather than might, made right. Based on this premise, he concluded that political power should be given only to the persons who demonstrate that they have insight into this truth. And that they, in turn should chose the wisest of the wise as their governmental leaders, as their philosopher kings. In his dialogue the Republic, Plato offers a number of suggestions for implementing his political ideas. The following proposal is also designed as a method for bringing his philosophy into the world. It does not follow Platos exact suggestions but it does capture the spirit of Platos thinking. The main philosophical issue is over whether every citizen, regardless of their intelligence, or ability, should have equal power in choosing the people who will run the government (the political philosophy of democracy). Or, should only those people who demonstrate the greatest political wisdom be making these choices (the political philosophy of aristocracy)? At present, the only requirement for voting in the Moduleed States is that you be a citizen over 18. With this very minimal requirement, in national elections, only about 50% of registered voters exercise their right to vote. And the turnout is much smaller for state and local elections. Thus, I think we can safely assume that if the following test were implemented, we would reduce the number of voters to around 1% of the population. In effect, the test would create an aristocracy. Consider a possible form that such a test might take: A Proposal: The best experts we have today within political science will design this test. It will be available in a number of languages. A committee, under supervision, will administer it so that no racial or ethnic bias occurs. A computer will score it so bias does not enter into the administering of this test. The test will be designed to eliminate people from the voting process who are not qualified to make informed and rational decisions based on: (1) knowledge of the issues, (2) knowledge of the political principles upon which our government rests, (3) the ability to reason logically and critically to a conclusion. People will be allowed to take the test as many times as they want. And they will be able to take courses at state expense that will teach them what they need to know to prepare for the test. Anyone who does not put forth the effort, or who does not have the ability to learn the material presented within the course, will probably not be able to pass the test for voting. But it would be unwise as well as unjust to allow these people to vote. Would this test, and the socio/political changes that would occur within a society if it implemented this test, be desirable? There are at least two important questions that need to be answered. The first is the practical question of whether not such a test could be successfully implemented. The second is the deeper and more philosophical question over whether it would be just and fair to have such a test. In his dialogue The Republic, Plato tried to create a model for an ideal society. We need to carefully assess his claim to having discovered the ideal, before we consider its practically. Perhaps Platos society could never be brought about. But this would not mean that it is not the ideal. An ideal society is a utopia. And utopia means no where. It is important to think about utopia to get a sense of what we should strive for as a peopleto define our ideals. Notice that in Platos utopia virtue is more important than freedom. And the only meaning that we give to the concept of equality is within the notion that everyone should have an equal opportModuley to show that they have ability. Is this the ideal we should strive for? Or should we reject Platos sense of utopia as totalitarian and oppressive? An Argument Made by Plato in Favor of this Test: Plato begins his argument by telling us that a society, similar to a family, is the result of the choices made by those in power. If you have power, then you can use it to either change your society or to try and keep it from changing. The more power you have, the more impact you have on what the world will look likewhether you use your power as Hitler did, or as Gandhi did. But if you have no power then you have no ability to bring significant change to the world, either for the better or for the worse. Plato next points out that, with few exceptions, ignorant people make ignorant choices in the way that they use their power, while wise people make wise choices. Ignorance does not mean unintelligent. It means lacking information, training and/or understanding. If a person has the power to act but is ignorant of the things that he or she needs to know in order to properly guide that action, then mistakes will result. People who try to fix things when they are ignorant of how those things work usually succeed it ruining those things. Can you imagine the consequences of allowing an ignorant person do brain surgery, work air traffic control or o the engineering on a bridge? On the other hand, if we give the power for doing these tasks over to the best experts available then we will increase our chances for removing a patients brain tumor, landing our airplanes safely and engineering bridges that do not collapse while we are crossing over them. Although experts can make mistakes, whom would you rather perform an operation on you, or pilot a plane you are flying in — ignorant amateurs or informed and well-trained experts? Plato tells us that if ignorant people are put into positions of influence and power, everyone affected by their decisions will suffer. This is why we do not let untrained people do surgery or incompetent people become captain of the football team. Is democracy a just form of government? Plato thinks that based on the points just made, we must conclude that power should be given only to those who show that they know how to use it. In a democracy, however, power is given not on the basis of wisdom or competence. Instead, power is given to voters just because they are people over eighteen. And they, in turn, bestow power on their leaders purely on the basis of the popularity these leaders can acquire through their manipulation of the untrained and ignorant voter. In contrast to this system, Plato argues that we should put power into the hands of only those people who best demonstrate wisdom at the art of governing. And this requires a wise voter to seek out and correctly identify these people. Those who are not wise enough to vote well do not deserve the power that has been given to them. By implementing a test for voting, we will have our best chance for meeting this goal. Since we want choices made which will give us our best chance for a just and happy society, it follows that a test for voting is just and fair. The State of Nature In the 18th Century, a huge debate occurred over what life might be like in the state of nature. The reasoning of the political philosophers at that time was that if we could determine how people would behave in a situation where there was no government at all, then this might tell us something about why government needs to be created, and what role government should play in our lives. In other words, the problems that occur in a state of nature, are exactly the problems government should be formed to solve. If there are a lot of problems, then we need more government intervention into our lives. But, if things run rather well in a state of nature, then much less government is needed. The disagreeing interpretation of life in a state of nature, offered by Thomas Hobbes and John Locke Is still highly relevant. Hobbes sees us as rather selfish and destructive. Without a lot of government regulation , strong policing and threats of punishment for law breaking, people will completely ignore the common good of society, and only pursue what they believe to be their self interests. Thus, the powerful will take advantage of the less powerful; and, the majority will ignore any rights of the individual. Locke, in contrast, sees people as basically reasonable and co- operative. He agrees that we want to pursue our self interests (our pursuit of happiness). But he does not believe that by nature this will lead to mutual exploitation and the state of war that Hobbes predicted would occur. Locke believes that reasonable people will have disagreements. Thus we do need some government to enter into the picture to settle disputes. But for Locke, the least amount of government is the best. By and large people do best when government does not interfere. It should enter the picture only as a last resort. Who do you think is closer to the truth? Do events such as the recent economic collapse, the BP oil spill tell us that we need a lot of government oversight and regulation of big business, which is, arguably, the most powerful group within the private sector. Or, is it the case that governmental interference within the free market, is the problem, rather than a solution to the problem? The Socialist Principle The term socialism has a broad use historically. The term goes far beyond the Marxist interpretation of it, which appeared around the middle of the 19th Century. Basically, the political philosophy behind the idea of “socialism” states that society should be seen as interconnected group, rather than as a collection of isolated individuals. And, although we can recognize that individuals have rights which should be respected, it is the well being of the group that is most important. The role of government, in this view, is to bring forth laws and policies that work to create the greatest well being for all, rather than to simply leave people alone to succeed or fail within their individual pursuit of self interest. Again, this does not mean that the individual pursuit of happiness is a bad thing. But only that it must be kept in balance with the good of the group. The most familiar practical consequence of this philosophical principle is the idea of the redistribution of wealth, usually through the mechanism of taxation. Those who have more than they need are taxed so that we can create institutions that are good for the group, such as public libraries, fire departments, health care systems, public parks, a social security system, a public school system, and so on. Also taxation can create funds to help people who have less that they need in order to live a minimally decent standard of living. relief for the poor. Although everyone complains about taxes, it would be very rare for a person to be taxed to the point that they were no longer able to afford a minimally decent standard of living, one where not all basic needs can be met. Mostly, we give up money that we want, not money that we need. Even if we were taxed at 90%, this would not necessarily be a hardship, in any serious sense of the term, if that person made say, one million dollars a year. Even with the cost of living in New Jersey, a family of four can live decently on $100,000 a year. However, even if a person was still able to live affluently after being taxed, this does not mean that the redistribution of wealth is a just political principle. If they are caught, people who dont pay their taxes will be punished. So, basically, the individual is being forced to help the group, with a threat of punishment if he or she does not cooperate. Although it might be a nice thing for me to give up one dollar to save the life of a child, it does not follow from this that I MUST give up that dollar, or, that the government has the right to MAKE ME give up that dollar. Anti socialists are not opposed to charity, since this is a voluntary system, rather than a mandatory one. Anti socialists might also argue that taxes are acceptable if they are used to protect the nation, through the maintenance of a military and a police force. Here, taxes are use for a different purpose than redistribution of wealth. Philosophically speaking, is the socialist principle a sound one? Should individuals be required to make sacrifices for the good of the group? For the moment, set aside the issue of how much of a sacrifice should be made, as well as the issue of how competent and efficient government might be in managing the redistribution of wealth, once the sacrifice has been made.
"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"
We are a leading academic writing company, which has been providing exclusive writing services for years.