You are here: UK Essays » Essays » Politics » Politically Speaking

Free Essays - Politics Essays

Politicallyspeaking, is there a correct way to live?

The question of is there acorrect way to live in political terms has engaged philosophers from the age ofPlato to the modern day. It is a question that requires an examination of theroles of both rulers and citizens within a society and there gave been a widerange of ideas developed through the centuries. At one end of the scale isPlato, with his theories on a utopian society where all men live happily underthe just rule of a philosophical elite, whilst at the other is Machiavelli whoconcentrates looks at the question simply from the point of view a ruler whowishes to remain in power. Other theories, such as the libertarian ideas ofRousseau are equally as applicable to the question. What is clear is that thereis no clearly defined answer to the question. Some theories offer utopianvisions of an ideal society that will never come to pass whilst others offervisions of ways to live that may be less morally acceptable but give a morerealistic way for the majority of citizens to live with some form of peace andstability.

Plato is generally accepted to bethe founder of political thought and the first to give serious thought topolitical society and the best way for men to live. Undoubtedly, whilstphilosophers that followed him may have vehemently disagreed with his ideas,his theories have been the basis for subsequent political thought. Plato, likemany who have written about political theory, saw little integrity in politicallife and saw little in the society in which he lived that suggested that thoseinvolved in political life where concerned by in finding the correct way tolive. Politics as Plato saw it was a means of acquiring and maintaining wealth,power and privilege. As a result he remained outside of political life andthrough his major works, the Republic, Statesman and Laws, developed his ideasfor a society in which philosophical rule would overcome the ills that blightedthe lives of his fellow citizens.

Plato's Republic saw him define hisbelief in moral values as the corner stone of political life, values that couldprovide a standard to judge the value of any political activity. The moralvalues of a society would be overseen by the leaders who had the best interestsof all their citizens at heart - as Field summarises for Plato the truestatesman is the man who leaves the citizens better men than he found them(p45 Field 1969). His basic premise remained that virtue and taking themorally right action is the thing that most impacts on people's lives. It isthe Government's function to advance the good of the governed through a moralknowledge that they have. Other recognised political goals - wealth, freedomand the avoidance of unrest, whilst issues that can contribute to a happy life- are not as important. Certainly, Plato's basic premise is utopian, but he didprovide directions as to how his goals might be achieved and some understandingof these is necessary in an analysis of Plato's theory on how to live a correctlife.

Plato envisaged an ideal politicalsociety to have three distinct strata: a ruling elite of philosophicalguardians; a military class for the defence of a state and; a third remainingclass made up of the bulk of citizens who would make up the economic base for asociety. At the heart of this society would be the idea of virtue and the roleof the rulers would be to provide the conditions for the achievement by itsmembers of virtue, and so of happiness, to whatever degree they are capable ofit (p23 Rowe 1984). The rulers would have a philosophical insight into thecorrect way to live that they would share with fellow citizens. Promotion tothis ruling elite would be based solely on merit, although Plato suggested thatthere would be hereditary qualities that might lead to generations of rulers tocome from one family. Within the leaders of society there would be naturalqualities, that with the correct education would lead to them leading just andvirtuous lives. These included quickness of understanding and learning,retentiveness of what is learnt, courage, self-control and firmness of purpose(P53 Fields 1969). Those within the military also required training to livetheir lives correctly. Power could not simply be left in the hands of those bestequipped to fight - those within the military would have to have a highstandard of moral and educational qualities. Promotional to the ruling classwould be available to those who stood out in the military class.

Plato saw the political purpose ofa community to satisfy the needs of its individual members, something thatrequired cooperation of all members. The separation of citizens into distinctclasses was largely a division of labour according to the skills and moralknowledge of particular individuals. From an individual perspective, carryingout one's role with virtue was, politically speaking, the correct way to live.Of course, such a vision leaves Plato open to accusations of promoting atotalitarian regime, in which the state as a whole becomes more important thanthe individual. This is true to some extent - Plato's proposals for theproduction of the' right' sort of citizens, control of education and theinstitutions of mating festivals do move towards totalitarianism, yet his ideasdo allow for freedom of the individual. For example Platos's theory of formssuggests that characteristics such as courage or good are entities inthemselves in which man can share - thus both citizens and rulers can discover,in an objective almost scientific way, the answers to both moral questions andgeneral rules on how we should live. Plato also suggested that the ultimateauthority over the lives of citizens should lie with a knowledgeable rulerrather than the laws - he saw laws as something that could be interpretedincorrectly and should be used only in the absence of an outstanding and justruler to make decisions.

Again, Plato saw the correct way tolive in utopian terms, where virtue leads the actions of both rulers andcitizens. His belief was one that a virtuous life is the one that if achieved,is the most satisfying to man. It is largely a theory to guide those who wouldsee the best attributes of man and had a faith in the inherent goodness of man.It is a theory largely in contrast with the likes of Machiavelli who saw theway to live in political terms almost exclusively in terms of maintainingpower, regardless of the effects on other citizens.

Machiavelli, in a similar way toPlato was inspired to his philosophy through a realisation of the corrupt livesled by those in political life. His observations of the Medici and otherpolitical powers in Italy convinced him that there was little morality inpolitics. Machiavelli however took a different and more pragmatic view of theconniving and often-brutal political leaders - he believed that to succeedpolitically, rulers simply had to take whatever actions where necessary;morality and the enhancement of the lives of all citizens are of littleconsequence. He also laid great emphasis on the Roman Empire for all itsbrutality and corruption it was an empire that had survived for centuries andcould be used as an example of a way of life that succeeded, politicallyspeaking For Machiavelli, the correct way to live was to ensure ones survivalin power and the continuation of the state.

Machiavellian theory was a responseto the humanist view that rulers had a duty to be liberal, merciful andtruthful. Rejecting this, Machiavelli argued in The Prince that a ruler couldnot succeed in always acting morally, to succeed and maintain power, he must beprepared to act immorally when this was necessary. In contrast to Plato,heargued that as well as good armies, strong laws were the essence of asuccessful society, writing it is impossible to have good laws if good armsare lacking.

Machiavelli analysed some of thecharacteristics generally accepted as being required to live a good lifeagainst the requirement for a ruler to stay in power. He saw generosity assomething that could be used, but discreetly and for a particular purpose,rather than for the simple act of generosity itself. He argued that opengenerosity could lead to a ruler being both despised and hated, something thatcould lead to his downfall. He wrote: it is wiser to accept a reputation asmiserly, which people despise but do not hate, than aspire to a reputation asgenerous, and as a consequence, be obliged to face criticism for rapacity,which people both despise and hate (p38 Wootton 1996). Compassion is aquality thought to be desired in political life, but Machiavelli warns againstthis. He cited the example of Cesare Borgia who through cruelty restored aunited, peaceful and law-abiding society. This theory lies at the heart at whatis a correct life politically speaking - a life that acts morally yet allowsdisorder to flourish, or a ruler that lives what might be seen as a cruel andimmoral life, yet maintains a peaceful and successful society. Machiavelli isin little doubt as to which is the preferable, writing So a ruler ought not tomind the disgrace of being thought cruel, if he keeps his subjects peaceful andlaw-abiding, for it is more compassionate to impose harsh punishments on a fewthan, out of excessive compassion, to allow disorder to spread which leads tomurders or lootings (p38 Wootton 1996). A similar line of thought is appliedto the concept that rulers should keep their word. Again this, in the rightcontext can be seen as praiseworthy, yet rulers who do not keep their word canachieve great things and ultimately better the lives of their citizens.Machiavelli bases his ideas largely on the premise that men are wicked and sowill consistently break their word to each other. In words that can be appliedto Machiavellian theory as a whole he writes: but because you cannot alwayswin if you respect the rules, you must be prepared to break them (p40 Wootton1996).

Machiavelli used the concept of virtuin describing how men may live a correct life. For all his pessimistic andnegative observations of men in the political sphere, the quality of virtuwas a moral virtue involving public spirit and good citizenship that derivedfrom a combination of skill, courage, decisiveness, adaptability andruthlessness. Virtu could be used to take whatever action is necessaryto achieve a political goal - it was a good quality in men that could propelthem to do things seen a immoral in order to benefit society as a whole.

A correct life in Machiavellianterms was one that benefited society regardless of how it was done. Cruelty,dishonesty and other traits seen as negative could be used by a ruler tomaintain a stable society. Machiavelli had few concern about sins of the fleshas they had little impact on the overall success of failure of a regime. Healso addressed the question as to whether a good ruler should be feared orloved. Whilst may would argue that a good ruler, living a correct life would beloved, Machiavelli differed - he suggested that fear of punishment amongstsubjects ensures control for a ruler. He wrote that a wise prince should notbe troubled about becoming notorious for those vices without which it isdifficult to preserve his power (p49 Wootton 1996).

Perhaps Machiavelli's most notablephilosophical achievement was to move away from the accepted belief in NaturalLaw in looking to define the correct way to live. The likes of Plato andAquinas before him and indeed Hobbes and Locke after him referred back tolegitimate power bestowed by God whilst Machiavelli looked simply at man aloneand his ability to seize power and live according to his own skills andstrengths. Rousseau later followed with his ideas that there is a general willheld by all men that deep down should guide the way that they live. Rousseausuggests that the correct way to live is by following this general will - infact only by following this general will men be truly free. Rousseau's SocialContract sought to seek out a correct way to live. He argued that men mustrealise both liberty and equality together and that under many Governments, menhad to give up their natural liberty. Popular sovereignty, where all the peopleshare in authority through legislative assemblies, for Rousseau, was the wayfor men to live correctly in political terms. Nonetheless, he accepted thefact that such a system of true democracy was utopian writing: taking the termin the strictest sense, a true democracy has never existed and never will. Itis contrary to the natural order that the majority govern and the minority isgoverned. It is unimaginable that the people would remain constantly assembledto handle public affairs; and it is readily apparent that it could notestablish commissions for this purpose without changing the form ofadministration (p496 Wootton 1996).

There is little consensus,politically speaking, on the correct way to live. Questions on how a stateshould be formed and organised and how men should oversee a state or livewithin in it have yet to be met with a definitive answer and it is unlikelythat they ever will. Utopian values of the likes of Plato seem the mostappealing. A state in which a knowledgeable, just and moral ruler or rulersguide a population to a fulfilling a virtuous life seems an idyllic scenario.Rousseau's theories on liberty and democracy appeal to libertarians, yet the practicalityof his ideas remains in doubt. It s indeed the more cynical thinking ofMachiavelli, relatively oblivious to moral concerns that appears to be the morerealistic way to live. His ideas of rulers adapting their morals according tothe needs of the state have little moral background but in terms ofpracticalities offer a more realistic way of political life, certainly whenbeing applied to modern times. Defining a correct way to live in politicalterms cannot be done in a idealistic way. Any theory must be able to hold outthe prospect of it be utilised. Machiavelli's way of life may be from perfect,indeed it would be hard to argue that it is correct, but it holds out a morerealistic opportunity of a state that tit stable, peaceful and law abiding thanmany others.

Bibliography

Field G C, The Philosophy ofPlato, Oxford University Press, London 1969

Machiavelli, The Prince, andDiscourses, in Modern Political Thought, ed David Wootton, HackettPublishing, Indianapolis 1996

Plato to NATO, BBC Books,London 1990

Rousseau, The Social Contract,in Modern Political Thought, ed David Wootton, Hackett Publishing,Indianapolis 1996

Smart B, MichelFoucault, Routledge Publishing, London 2002

All of the essays in this section were written by students and then submitted to us to publish and help others. Thanks to all of the students who have submitted their essays to us. You should not hand in our essays as your own. We do not condone plagiarism! If you need custom essays on your exact essay questions, then have a look at our essay writing service.

Sign up and be the first to receive our latest offers: