Throughout history, organized human society has found it necessary to create governments: institutions capable of directing the productive powers of society towards the common good, protect the community from internal and external threats, ensure that the individuals who comprises the society receives the best possible environment in which to proliferate and curb the destructive and damaging presence of man from harming himself. The lack of an organized institution to manage the people will invariably result in disorder and chaos. Therefore, we will consider three different political philosophies and their attempt to create a stable form of government for humanity.
Plato’s aristocracy was created in the context of his beliefs of humans being …show more content…
The ruling class has far too much power because they control education, communication, military and many other aspects of society that give them a significant advantage while at the same time ultimately oppressing the majority. There is no freedom to express alternative ideas and there is no free economy to allow a free market, since the ‘philosopher-kings’ knows what’s best for the people and will control everything. Plato argues this is because ruling is a skill, and like all skills it can be cultivated and trained, and therefore, only those most suitable at ruling should rule. Those who are not suited at ruling should not be allowed to interfere in the running of the nation, because they lack sufficient ‘knowledge’ to rule. In essence, Plato has created an anti-democratic, authoritarian form of …show more content…
Ethical egoism is the viewpoint that all human actions are inherently selfish. Egoists contend that altruism does not exist and even when human beings perform acts that seem completely selfless, it is for emotional gratification. David Hume attacked Hobbes as an egoist in his own writing but a careful reading of Hobbes shows some key differences between his view and egoism. Hobbes sees human motivation not merely as seeking gratification and advantage to oneself but in seeking power over other people. Another criticism of Hobbes is the fact that putting absolute power in the hand of one person could still result in chaos if that individual allows it to run rampant. He is, in essence, exchanging the ‘evil of conflict’ for the ‘evil of tyranny’ in the name of security and
Plato’s aristocracy was created in the context of his beliefs of humans being …show more content…
The ruling class has far too much power because they control education, communication, military and many other aspects of society that give them a significant advantage while at the same time ultimately oppressing the majority. There is no freedom to express alternative ideas and there is no free economy to allow a free market, since the ‘philosopher-kings’ knows what’s best for the people and will control everything. Plato argues this is because ruling is a skill, and like all skills it can be cultivated and trained, and therefore, only those most suitable at ruling should rule. Those who are not suited at ruling should not be allowed to interfere in the running of the nation, because they lack sufficient ‘knowledge’ to rule. In essence, Plato has created an anti-democratic, authoritarian form of …show more content…
Ethical egoism is the viewpoint that all human actions are inherently selfish. Egoists contend that altruism does not exist and even when human beings perform acts that seem completely selfless, it is for emotional gratification. David Hume attacked Hobbes as an egoist in his own writing but a careful reading of Hobbes shows some key differences between his view and egoism. Hobbes sees human motivation not merely as seeking gratification and advantage to oneself but in seeking power over other people. Another criticism of Hobbes is the fact that putting absolute power in the hand of one person could still result in chaos if that individual allows it to run rampant. He is, in essence, exchanging the ‘evil of conflict’ for the ‘evil of tyranny’ in the name of security and