Socrates: Government and order is necessary. However, the world consists of unjust rulers. Most are in the evil state of man and in darkness. The philosopher looks towards the light, and because he is intelligent, his perspective leads him to the absolute good. The only just rulers are those who looks down upon political ambition and these are the true philosophers.
Student: Locke suggests a “politic society” in which men are willingly united. Are you suggesting a king or, as Locke suggests, democracy by clear appointment and right to sovereignty?
Socrates: Indeed, I am suggesting a true philosopher king. The philosopher is the best fit to rule. Locke disagrees and says that the man in power should not be in absolute or arbitrary power. …show more content…
The democracy may be just if the appointed have made philosophy their main pursuit. But, the high number of men making decisions in a democracy makes it impossible to ensure that the men appointed with power knows and follows philosophy truths.
Student: Fair enough. Locke tells that men are “members of some politic society”, do you agree with this statement?
Socrates: Locke says that men are in a state of nature until they give consent to a government, thereby making themselves “members of some politic society”. Even with a philosopher king, or any governmental body of that matter, one cannot rule without consent of the people. The justice I believe exists is similar to Locke’s idea of social consent.
Student: How is justice similar to a social contract that Locke believes?
Socrates: Justice and honour are taught at a young age under parental authority. I believe that justice is based on a type of “social contract”. People make the decision to obey and sacrifice injustices in order to avoid the consequences. In a social contract humans make the decision to obey and give consent to the law as well.
Student: You mentioned Locke’s “state of nature”. You have not told of a “state of nature”, therefore you don’t believe it exists,
Student: Locke suggests a “politic society” in which men are willingly united. Are you suggesting a king or, as Locke suggests, democracy by clear appointment and right to sovereignty?
Socrates: Indeed, I am suggesting a true philosopher king. The philosopher is the best fit to rule. Locke disagrees and says that the man in power should not be in absolute or arbitrary power. …show more content…
The democracy may be just if the appointed have made philosophy their main pursuit. But, the high number of men making decisions in a democracy makes it impossible to ensure that the men appointed with power knows and follows philosophy truths.
Student: Fair enough. Locke tells that men are “members of some politic society”, do you agree with this statement?
Socrates: Locke says that men are in a state of nature until they give consent to a government, thereby making themselves “members of some politic society”. Even with a philosopher king, or any governmental body of that matter, one cannot rule without consent of the people. The justice I believe exists is similar to Locke’s idea of social consent.
Student: How is justice similar to a social contract that Locke believes?
Socrates: Justice and honour are taught at a young age under parental authority. I believe that justice is based on a type of “social contract”. People make the decision to obey and sacrifice injustices in order to avoid the consequences. In a social contract humans make the decision to obey and give consent to the law as well.
Student: You mentioned Locke’s “state of nature”. You have not told of a “state of nature”, therefore you don’t believe it exists,