Political Philosophy Correction - Coursework Example

Karim Sultan Prof. Welch Political Philosophy Political Philosophy Introduction Many people have questioned whether the government, with all its laws and regulations is justified to rule the people. What right does the government have to demand that its people obey? Why should an individual obey the state in the first place? These are just a few of philosophical queries being asked. Nonetheless, a majority of the responds stress the need for an orderly process and protection as the justification for obedience to the government. Some have highlighted the need to promote cultural and spiritual aspects of the populace while others stress the need for economic well-being, which stands as the foundation for all values. This text looks into the answers given by John Stuart Mill, John Rawls, Karl Marx, and Friedrich Engels. John Stuart Mill Mill concurs with Lock in vying for representational democracy; however, he is against the idea of natural rights (Pojman, 502). The struggle between Authority and Liberty has been ongoing for a long time particularly in the history of countries like Rome, Greece, and England. However, during such times, the contest was between the government and certain classes of subjects. Liberty meant protection against the dictatorship of political rulers. The rulers at the time obtained authority from conquest or inheritance. Therefore, most of them never held leadership at the pleasure of the citizens. Although their power was deemed necessary, it was regarded as highly dangerous. Some of the leaders would use authority as a strategic weapon against their adversaries or subjects (Pojman, 502). However, it reached a time when men stopped to believe that their governors should be independent. They deemed it fit that their leaders should be delegates or tenants revocable at their gratification. That way, they would have total security that the government authority will never take them for granted. Others still thought that there was a need to let their give responsibility to their leaders, where they can be removed if need be. This idea was common amongst the last liberal European generation (Pojman, 504). However, in time, a democratic republic came into place as an elective and responsible government was ushered into place. The will of the people meant the will of the many. According to Mill, the only instance where power can be exercised in the right manner is when used on any civilized member of a community to prevent harm against others, against his will (Pojman, 505). However, this is not about minors in the society. Freedom should only be extended towards the pursuance of our own good in a specific way, so long as no other person gets hurt. A person who hurts others should be punished by law, in a situation where legal penalties cannot be safely applied. A person can also be compelled to do acts that would be of benefit to the rest of the society, for instance, to give evidence in a court of law, saving another human being’s life, or protect the defenseless. The society, in this case, will hold responsible the individual should he fail to do the act. In this regard, a person can cause harm to others, not necessarily by doing wrong, but by refusing to do the right thing. Mill further argues that people should not have the right to coerce the government into doing something; such power in itself is illicit (Pojman, 507). It is even more noxious for a government to exert power as a result of public opinion. Basically, Mill promotes the idea that the principle of liberty is only justifiable by utilitarian reflections. Mill in his text promotes the idea that democracy will make the most of happiness, especially if it serves to promote and preserve individual liberty. Of course, his argument comes from a utilitarian point of view. Nonetheless, I agree with most of his arguments, for instance, that every rational individual should live as he or she considers fit. I also concur with the suggestion that the only instance the government or any other person in authority can intervene is when a person is committing an act that would restrict or harm others in the society. Democracy is a favorable system, but it can be abused if the people are not careful. In this case, the majority or the ruler has no right to restrict the right of others under any circumstance. It is also viable that this right should be protected no matter what or how a person intends to live. Definitely, it is better for everyone to live under a society that is free, where everyone is free to after their personal wishes and dreams. There will be no justice if the majority or authority set down codes and rules for living, in which everyone will be forced to follow. Every person is better off living a free life devoid of interruptions from fellow citizens or the government. John Rawls An outstanding person in liberal political philosophy John Rawls and his writing A Theory of Justice played a very important role in the American philosophy. A Theory of Justice is still considered to be one of the most important works in the field of liberal philosophy. This work made a major contribution to science. The main idea of the work is "most reasonable principles of justice are those everyone would accept and agree to from a fair position"(Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy). To build his philosophic idea, Rawls used the well-known veil of ignorance in order to define what can help create a reasonable and just agreement where all the people are equal and to define the main rules of fairness (Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy). Rawls is considered to be a thinker who helped people to reinstate their faith in equality and fairness. According to Jonathan Wolff, a famous English philosopher “while there might be a dispute about the second most important political philosopher of the 20th century, there could be no dispute about the most important: John Rawls. His student Samuel Freeman says that Rawls’s work will be recognized for centuries to come” (cited in Gordon 2008). Karl Marx Karl Max played an instrumental role in the dawn of the Marxist movement. According to him, all cultural values, including all the laws and ideal, of a society are at all times the reflection of the rulers. History has always painted a picture of struggles between the classes (Pojman, 510). During the past periods of history, there has been an intricate arrangement of the society into different social orders, a diverse degree of social rank. In ancient Rome, for instance, one will discover patricians, slaves, plebeians, knights, vassals, journeymen, feudal lords, serfs, apprentices, and many other subordinate gradations (Pojman, 510). The modern society has done nothing but restructured the classes, formed new conditions of tyranny, and new forms of struggles. The contemporary society has simplified these division antagonisms. Modern industry has also replaced the old system by establishing the world market, which paved way for the discovery for the Americas (Pojman, 510). This market has brought numerous developments in the same manner the bourgeoisie developed the society during the old times. The bourgeoisie, through exploiting the world market, has painted a cosmopolitan picture to manufacture and consumption in every nation. The bourgeoisie, via rapid advancement of all production instruments, have forced even the most barbarian states to turn into civilizations. Their acts force all states, in avoidance of extinction, to introduce civilization in their midst, which means to become bourgeois by themselves. Consequently, all countries have been subjected to the tenet of the towns. This has led to an increase in the town population and a reduction in the rural communities. In the same manner, the bourgeoisie has made all barbarian or semi-barbarian states reliant on the civilized nations (Pojman, 512). The modern bourgeois is also doing the same. The society now acts like a sorcerer; they can no longer control power but can be pulled by its spells. The society is now in a state of brief barbarism. Too much civilization has cut off all the means of subsistence and commerce. These conditions have made the bourgeoisie even more powerful than before. This class of people has, however, come in conflict with several other groups. The proletariat is the most revolutionary class of them all (Pojman, 515). As these struggles continue, it appears that every form of the society is based on the antagonism of the tyrannizing and tyrannized classes. The bourgeois, in their attempt to exist and sway other classes, have formed and augment capital (wage labor is the condition for capital). Wage labor is only present among the competing laborers. In essence, industry cuts the foundation on which the ruling class manufactures and appropriate goods and services. Consequently, the victory and the fall of the proletariat are predictable. The communist in their answer strive to push for the interest of the proletariat movement despite the nationality (Pojman, 516). Friedrich Engels Friedrich Engels was born in German but moved to Manchester, England. His experience in the dealings of the British industry throughout the Industrial Revolution equipped him with facts to work with Marx. He is the co-founder of the Marxist Movement. According to his thoughts, society is more and more dividing into two distinct and hostile sides: Proletariat and Bourgeoisie. During the Middle Ages, the serfs laid down the way for the chartered burghers in the earliest of towns, where the first of the bourgeoisie sprang. The discovery of the Americas opened up new venues for the market (Pojman, 511). As markets kept on growing, the demand kept on rising. Machinery and steam revolutionized every sector in the Industrial production. The Modern Industry replaced the small scale manufacture. Millionaires took the place of the industrial middle class. Lastly, the modern bourgeois replaced the leaders of the early industrial armies. It is this new market dispensation that has given birth to navigation, to commerce, and to communication by land. The modern bourgeoisie, therefore, is a product of a long development course, which came as a result of various revolutions (Pojman, 511). Bourgeoisies and communists In every sense, the bourgeoisies has put an end to every idyllic, patriarchal, and feudal relation. It has also ended the feudal link between man and his ordinary superiors. The only thing existing between man and man is the “cash payment” (Pojman, 511). Furthermore, it has drowned the most divine delights of gallant enthusiasm, of religious enthusiasm, and of philistine sentimentalism. The only freedom present at the moment is the Free Trade. Personal worth has turned into exchange value. Everyone including the poet, the priest, the physician, the scientist and the lawyer has been turned into laborers that are paid by wages. The bourgeoisie, in its part, have been forced by the expanding market to run all over the globe. It has to settle, nestle, and set connections everywhere. New forms of industries have replaced the old ones. The communists in their answer have no interest in separate interests apart from those of the proletariat. They never institute any sectarian principles by which they can shape and mould the proletarian society. However, the communist are different from other working class group by one thing: they identify and bring out the common interests of the whole proletariat (Pojman, 516). The communists, on their part, describe the proletariat as a societal class that totally lives off its labor. It does not in any way get profit from any form of capital. The life and death of this class entirely depends of the labor demand. This is equal to the working class of the nineteenth century. It is this class that the communist vows to protect at all times, which is a great thing in itself. Nonetheless, I wonder if the proletariat has been there from time immemorial or did they emerge recently during the industrial revolution. I agree with a good number of points presented by Karl Marx and Friedrich. For example, the new form of industry, the machine, has destroyed the old system of industry and manufacture in all countries. The marketplace also has become mechanized. Every country, even the barbarian and semi-barbarian, have had to change or end up collapsing or isolated. The industrial revolution has had various consequences on the proletariat class. The expansion of the new market and industrial production has sped it up thereby cutting down its costs. Conclusion This new form of production increases the competition rate. Since the commencement of the 19th century, the environment of the industry has been fluctuating from time to time between periods of crisis and periods of prosperity. The Communist Manifesto ends the discussion by stating their role as they work with other societal parties. The communist always fight for the pressing aims of the working class; nonetheless, they have to be in the context of the Communist movement. I support the idea that the communists offer their support to the oppressed. The communists aim to support all revolutionary movements that are against any existing political and social order of things. The end section shows the Communist political agenda. Their final aim has always been to support of proletariat revolution, and abolish private property as well as class antagonism. I am not sure about abolishing private property, but it is always important to ensure that the oppressed are set free. Work cited Pojman, Louis. Philosophy: The Quest for Truth. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, "Rawls, John," Cambridge University Press, pp. 774-775. Gordon, David, “Going Off the Rawls”, The American Conservative, 2008 Read More