The Philosophical Theories - Term Paper Example

Compare and contrast the theories of Aristotle, Plato and Machiavelli. The teachings of early philosophers are indeed timeless. While it may be said that our world has had many developments since the time that these philosophers had walked the earth and we currently new technology and new wonders previously undreamed of, it cannot be gainsaid that it is the lessons from the past that has acted like a lamp to guide the future and animate our path. We look to the path as a way by which we make decisions in the resent and we rely on the teachings of our forefathers to help build a better world for us all. This paper will provide a careful analysis of the theories of Aristotle, Plato and Machiavelli. The first two are ancient thinkers, which Niccolo Machiavelli is considered a modern thinker. Many analysts and political scientists have argued in the past that Plato and Aristotle and Machiavelli have divergent political views. Specifically, it has been argued that Machiavelli's positions have contrasted greatly with the views of Aristotle and Plato, particularly their views on the government and the State. However, this paper would like to forward the central thesis that if one analyzes carefully their works, it would prove that the theories of Machiavelli have actually benefited much from the theories of Aristotle and Plato and one can see some areas of intersection. But first, what is ancient philosophy and what does it have to do with It is important to look at some leading political scientists for answers. According to Annas (1992): We study the ancient theories, then, but with some doubt as to what they are theories of. We tend in fact to talk of ancient ethics, not ancient morality, and we do the same for modern theories containing elements that are prominent in the ancient ones: thus, we talk of virtue ethics, not virtue morality. There is a fairly widespread attitude that ancient theories of virtue and the good life are concerned not with what we take to be morality, but with something different, an alternative which can be labeled ethics. Platonic philosophy is hinged on moral virtue as practiced by just rulers. According to him, man served the State and hence, ethics and politics were the same. This is to be contradistinguished with Machiavellian principles, which states that the State should serve the people. That is its whole reason for being. Under Machiavelli's consent, a ruler is justified in doing whatever needs to be done to maintain the country, even if his actions may be deemed unjust. This is the source of the famous quote: "The end justifies the means." This is a complete opposite of the Platonic model which argues that a ruler may never be unjust. It is immoral and unethical, maintains Plato, for a ruler to rule solely by might. A background on Plato's methodology and work is provided by Bruell (1994): Plato's political philosophy is accessible to us primarily through the three great works whose very titles point to their political themes: the Republic, the Laws, the Statesman. The Republic and the Laws, which happen to be his longest works by far, are devoted chiefly to developing very thoroughgoing themes of political reform; the Statesman is devoted to the search for rare qualities or qualifications that would make a man worthy of that name. Plato's political philosophy first come to sight both as critical and reformist: it establishes immediately its distance from actual politics and looks to the true politics, which Plato's own educational efforts are presumably intended to help bring about. It can thus have an apparently contrary effect, however. Even as it raises readers' political hopes, it may lower their willingness to participate in the only politics available to them, for the small good that might be done there seems smaller still when it is compared with the good they have been led to expect from the schemes of radical reform that they have become acquainted with in Plato. Plato's theories have found traces in the writings of the more modern philosophers and thinkers. For example, his beliefs in human autonomy were echoed by Kant. The difference between autonomy and heteronomy is that an autonomous will is self-legislating while a heteronomous will is one where the acts of the self are directed by external rules. According to Kant, if an action is to be considered as genuine, then it should emanate from the self, or should be the result of autonomous will. Plato speaks of the Good Life in his works, and this is explained by Lavine (1984, p. 55) as follows: The good life is the harmoniously balanced life, the life which satisfies in proper order the needs of the three parts of the self. This is the Good Life, the life of virtue and excellence for a human being, and it offers no mere pleasures for the palate or of the sex organs - it offers human happiness, the sense of the well-being of the whole person. The Good Life is not the life of the early Christian denial of the body and contempt of the flesh. The body must be satisfied, and be healthy, strong and beautiful. Kant's formulation of the categorical imperative is as follows: ""Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." This means that when an individual decides to act a certain way as dictated by his autonomous will, he must aspire that such action will be the universal norm and that he is setting a rule for others to follow in the future. Adherence to categorical imperatives provides for autonomous ethical choice in the sense that human dignity is combined with universality, so that the product of each one's autonomous will shall at the same time be for oneself and for all. To quote Kant, "A rational being belongs to the kingdom of ends as a member when he legislates in it universal laws while also being himself subject to these laws. He belongs to it as sovereign, when as legislator he is himslf subject to the will of no other." This resonates with Platonic ideals, indeed. Aristotle echoes Plato's concern and desire for an Ideal State. He considers it an ideal state if the needs of the entire city-state are served and not just the needs of a portion of the city-state. In that sense, Aristotle echoed Plato's broad themes of democracy and morality and justice, and the requirements of a ruler to give everyone his due and never rule with injustice or with an iron hand. Machiavelli has stated, ""A Prince, therefore should have no care or thought but for war, and the regulations and training it requires, and should apply himself exclusively to this as his peculiar province; for war is the sole art looked for in one who rules" (Machiavelli, P. 70)." Therefore, it is clear that Machiavelli's idea of virtu' is not one that is based on moral character, but rather, based on utility. For Machiavelli, virtu' outweighs morality when the needs of the situation demands it; for Plato, one must preserve morality at all times. Plato believes in utopian ideals and propositions; Machiavelli, was a realist. Plato believed in the creation of the ideal society, while Machiavelli asserted that it was not undesirable to have less-than-ideal behavior, such as the use of brute force, if the end-result of this is a state that is well-ordered and a state where everyone's well-being is served. However, it is only if one is careless or dismissive about the teachings of Machiavelli that one will think that Machiavelli is saying that any evil action is justified if the end goal of this is good. That is clearly not the case. He placed certain restriction on the evil actions and the specified which outcomes are indeed good. The only acceptable good outcome for which evil actions may be justified is the stability and the welfare of the State. What this means is individual benefits or individual rewards are not counted as justifications for evil deeds. He also limited the definition and scope of evil actions. It cannot be protracted and indefinite. Instead, according to Machiavelli, it must be "swift, effective and short-lived". Hence, it cannot be said that Machiavelli is a very radical departure from Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy because he does not really countenance evil and injustice for evil and injustice's sake and he prescribes very definite limitations for the practice of cruel acts and defines goodness very clearly and strictly. That said, however, Machiavellian influence is great and far-reaching. To quote Dietz (1986, p. 777): By now it has become commonplace for political scientists in fields as diverse as international relations, comparative politics, organization theory, and political psychology to construct explanations about political life and political conduct that rely on the axioms that evolve from Machiavelli's little treatise. These include necessities of naked self interest, the maintenance of rulership at all costs, the utility of unethical and manipulative behaviour, and the centrality of power as an end in and of itself. Other similarities in their philosophies are embedded in the texts of their works, which we will now explore and study. There is enough evidence to prove that indeed, Machiavellian philosophy contains some strains of Platonic and Aristotelian influences, and it is but necessary that this be acknowledged. First of all, Machiavelli argued that "a wise man ought always to follow the paths beaten by great men" (Machiavelli 41). What this means is that he argues with Plato that some individuals were suited for governing and some were not. Hence, Machiavelli echoes the Platonic belief that not all individuals were created equal, especially with respect to leadership. They are only different in the sense that Plato maintains that a leader must always be just and virtuous, while Machiavelli allows room for the leader to use cruelty or brute force if this means that it will keep the city-state stable and orderly and prosperous. But the similarity is that both thinkers, separated by centuries, believe that not everyone possesses the qualities of a good leader and hence it is essential to immediately spot those who have the potential already. Why is it, Plato laments - When we Athenians are met together in the assembly, and the matter in hand relates to building, the builders are summoned as advisers; when the question is one o ship-building, then the shipwrights But when the question is an affair of state, then everybody is free to have a say - carpenter, tinker, cobbler, merchant, sea captain, rich or poor, high and low - anybody who likes gets up, and no one reproaches him, as in the former case, with not having learned and yet giving advice. Another similarity between the ancient thinkers and the modern thinker that is Machiavelli can be seen in Plato's concept of the "noble lie". In the Republic, Plato suggested that a class of tale may be used to preserve social order. He also said that the Guardians would defend the Gods. Clearly, this is a tale of fiction. What Plato suggests is that there are occasions when it is not improper to resort to deceptive means to bring about social order, or to bring about a change that is perceived to be good. It is from this notion, that we can speculate on the concept of "bread and circus" a concept developed during the Roman times that is taken to mean the short-term mechanisms that are employed to distract citizens from participating in their government and from being vigilant against their leader's misdeeds. Of course, Plato did not mean it in this sense. What Plato actually meant was that there are some circumstances wherein "lying" or at least spinning tales to manipulate the emotions and provoke either fear, anger hatred or admiration, may be justified if the end goal is the protection and the life of the state. It was not important that these tales where true, so long as they were believed (Plato 62) Certainly, this is comparable to what Machiavelli is saying in the Prince, and the idea for which he will forever be known. It must be noted that according to Machiavelli, the qualities of a good prince are: mercy, faithfulness, humanity, religiosity and uprightness. But this is not the whole point. According to Machiavelli, it is not important that these characteristics are actually owned by the Prince or by the leader. What is important is that he appears as though he owns these characteristics and his subjects are led to believe that their leader has those values. In sum, both Machiavelli and Plato believe that it is sometimes necessary to spin tales if the end result is good for the State. Ultimately, both of them seek a State that will provide for its citizens and will help them develop to their fullest human potentials. Third, the thinkers Aristotle and Machiavelli have laid down the premises for the concept of the Rule of Law, which was elaborated further by thinkers like Dicey and Raz. Aristotle said that good laws can "educate" the citizenry and stabilize government (Aristotle 110). Machiavelli, on the other hand, stated that The chief foundations of all states, new as well as oldare good laws," (Machiavelli, 93). Their works are consistent with the idea of the Rule of Law propounded by A.V. Dicey in his book "Introduction to the Study of Law of the Constitution" (1885). Dicey posited the following propositions. Firstly, no man could be punished or lawfully interfered with by the authorities except for breaches of law. In other words, all government actions must be authorised by law. Secondly, no man is above the law and everyone, regardless of rank, is subject to the ordinary laws of the land. Thirdly, there is no need for a bill of rights because the general principle of the constitution are the result of judicial decisions determining the rights of the private person. Joseph Raz, on the other hand, espouses eight guiding principles for the rule of law. First, all laws should be prospective, open and clear; laws should be relatively stable; the making of particular laws must be guided by open, stable, clear and general rules; the independence of the judiciary must be guaranteed; the principles of natural justice must be observed; the courts should have review powers; the courts should be easily accessible; and the discretion of crime prevention agencies should not be allowed to pervert the law. The notion of the Rule of Law is founded on the idea of a just society which Plato and Aristotle and Machiavelli have all contributed towards with their ideas and teachings. The ancient legal system itself has been influenced heavily by philosophers like Plato, Aristotle and Cicero. Roman law is the legal system of ancient Rome, covering more than one thousand years from the twelve tables to the Corpus Juris Civilis. Animated in large part by the great thinkers of its time, this provides ready example that the law is more a patchwork quilt of the evolving mindsets of the day, than a steady and solid rock. For example, the great thinker Cicero maintains that there was no distinction between that which was morally good and what was useful to man. To quote from Cicero, "Virtue is a habit of the mind, consistent with nature and moderation and reason." [Rhetorical Invention (bk. II, sc. LIII)] Much of this has been influenced by Platonic philosophy which is hinged on moral virtue as practiced by just rulers. As such, the concept of government and duty has underlain much of ancient law and has aided the people of the time in charting their destiny. The interface between law and literature and the arts provides insights into how legal history was shaped during the past. Much of the law was influenced by the cultural milieu of the time. To quote from Green (1929): It is generally understood that the plays of Plautus, based on Greek models and avowedly translations of Greek comedies, have been so adapted for presentation to a Roman audience that they present a mixture of Greek and Roman elements. But the extent to which materials of each kind are used has been the subject of considerable discussion rather wide disagreement. Especially is this true as to the legal questions involved in the questions presented. It is of course, folly to think that Plato and Aristotle did not have any disagreements at all. Aristotle was a student of Plato and a teacher of Alexander the Great. Both Aristotle and Plato, together with Socrates, are considered the most influential thinkers of ancient Greek Philosophy. They are credited even today for defining and laying the groundwork for Western Philosophy, whose foundations clearly take root in the teachings of Ancient Greece. In fact, Aristotle has presented a scathing criticism of Plato's theory of forms. Lavine (70) summarizes Aristotle's criticism as follows: Plato's theory of forms claim to explain the nature of things but in fact the abstract forms are only useless copies of actual things, and fail to provide any explanation of the existence and changes of concrete things. Plato's theory of forms sets up an unbridgeable gap, a dualism between the world of intelligible ideas and the world of sensible things; the theory makes it impossible to explain how sensible things and intelligible patterns are related at all. Machiavelli, Plato and Aristotle today Many believe that Plato and Aristotle's works, representing as they do Ancient Greek Philosophy, are far removed from the work of Machiavelli, who was born several centuries later. Plato and Aristotle espouse the concept of virtue and ethics and how a ruler must always be just and consider the greater good. While the two philosophers - teacher and student, respectively - have had their differences, particularly with respect to Plato's theory of forms, but are one in envisioning the concept of a just society, with a stable rule of law and where citizens thrive under the protective mantle of democracy and the watch of a good leader, or philosopher-king. Machiavelli, on the other hand, espouses - or at least condones - the use of brute force and manipulation if the end goal is the welfare and the protection of the State. This paper has posited the theory that in truth, there are similarities and intersections in Machiavelli's teachings, and the teachings of the ancient Greek philosophers. All espouse the rule of law, all believe in the use of some deception in order to be a good leader, and Machiavelli, like Plato, actually believes in the Ideal State in the sense that his concept of the use of evil means is extremely restricted. In the present day, it would be interesting to note how these teachings are applied. It would seem that the just society envisaged by Plato and Aristotle has laid the groundwork for the concept of human rights, a discourse that now animates and informs international law. The concept of human rights is by no means of recent vintage. It is used primarily to define relationships between the citizens and the State, by constituting a check on the awesome power of the State and by enabling human beings to flourish to their fullest potential free from oppression, strife, hunger and discrimination. A thriving and robust democracy, it is often said, can only be achieved when basic human rights are preserved. Cherished principles like press freedom, religious freedom, diversity and pluralism are indispensable requirements of a democratic society. It is difficult, if not altogether impossible, to argue against the validity of these principles. The various conflicts and revolutions in the world have shaped the concept of human rights as we know it. In the last two hundred and fifty years, we see the clamor for human rights as the clamor of a world and of the various peoples inside it for equality and freedom. Starting with the French and American revolutions towards the latter part of the eighteenth century, it is this very notion of human rights that has led colonized states and revolutionary movements to assert their voices and fight for their freedoms against oppressive and despotic governments - from the Tiananmen Square uprising in China to the struggle of the East Timorese against Indonesian occupation. The holistic nature of human rights has been articulated at the World Conference on Human Rights held in Vienna in 1993: All human rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent and interrelated. The international community must treat human rights globally in a fair and equal manner, on the same footing, and with the same emphasis. While the significance of national and regional particularities and various historical, cultural and religious backgrounds must be borne in mind, it is the duty of States, regardless of their political, economic and cultural systems, to promote and protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms. The attitude towards the rule of law that we can likewise credit our early thinkers for has also helped craft our equal protection and due process guarantees. Legal systems in the civilized world - whether in civil or common law jurisdictions -- have, at least in theory, given primacy to the rights of the accused, understanding that ambiguity should be resolved in his or her favor. This, however, does not mean that one must let down his or her vigilance and stop guarding against possible infringement of constitutional guarantees by overzealous judges, particularly at a time when human rights advocacy for the accused has been made unpopular by the rising rate of crime. The ICCPR contains iron-clad guarantees to protect the rights of the accused facing trial for a crime. Articles 9, 14 and 15 spell out these rights in great detail - from the presumption of innocence to the right against self-incrimination to the right against double jeopardy and to the famous Miranda doctrine. For example, Article 14(1) reads: All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, or of his rights and obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law. The Press and the public may be excluded from all or part of a trial for reasons of morals, public order (ordre public) or national security in a democratic society, or when the interest of the private lives of the parties so requires, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice; but any judgment rendered in a criminal case or in a suit at law shall be made public except where the interest of juvenile persons otherwise requires or the proceedings concern matrimonial disputes or the guardianship of children. Equal protection is touted to be a basic principle in human rights law. Considered crucial to the protection of civil rights, it mandates that the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as other similarly-situated. Though the ICESCR does not explicitly mention the phrase "equal protection", the principle of it permeates the entire document, in that it speaks categorically against discrimination against gender, class, race, and the like. It is clear that the ICESCR does not countenance unequal application of the laws using an arbitrary standard. In sum, these are clear indicators that the lessons of the past still live on to the present. They may have been refined, yes, they may have been slightly altered by the changing current of the times, but they still serve as guideposts to us as we navigate our way throughout history. If not for Aristotle, Plato and Machiavelli, we would be hard put to craft laws and policies to define ourselves and our direction. References Annas, J. "Ancient Ethics and Modern Morality". Philosophical Perspectives, Vol. 6, Ethics (1992), pp. 119-136 Bruell, C. "On Plato's Political Philosophy" The Review of Politics, Vol. 56, No. 2 (Spring, 1994), pp. 261-282 Dicey, A.V. (1885) Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution. Dietz, M. "Trapping The Prince: Machiavelli and the Politics of Deception" The American Political Science Review, Vol. 80, No. 3 (Sep., 1986), pp. 777-799 Green, W. (1929) Greek and Roman Law in the Trinummus of Plautus. Classical Philology, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 183-192. Lavine, T.Z. From Socrates to Sartre: the Philosophic Quest. New York: Bantam Books. 1984. Raz, Joseph. The Authority of Law. Oxford University Press: USA. Read More