Main Aspects of Modern Political Thought - Essay Example

Modern Political Thought: 3 Questions Part Question 4 Nietzsche seeks to explain the evolution of modern moral values out of what he calls “the slaves’ revolt in morality. Nietzsche asserts that “the ‘masters’ have been done away with, the morality of the vulgar has triumphed” (Nietzsche, 18). Nietzsche calls into question the origin of modern values through what he deems a necessary history of morality itself. There are two valuations of good and evil that Nietzsche explains, the triumphant value being the lower class system of values that have arisen out of social upheavals. The noble or aristocratic modes of valuation of goodness are things that are powerful, life affirming and exclusive. On the other side, the lower classes consider good all that is crass and vulgar and unlike the upper classes, takes the form of a reactionary stance other than a cultivation of self-interests. “The revolt of the slaves in morals begins in the very principle of resentment becoming creative and giving birth to values- a resentment experience by creatures who, deprived as they are of the proper outlets of action, are forced to find their compensation in an imaginary revenge” (Nietzsche 19) The "good versus evil" distinction, which is the end result of what Nietzsche calls "slave morality" Nietzsche equates a low-class “evil” is what aristocratic morality calls "good". Slave morality, essentially, weighs actions on a scale of good or evil intentions, and reacts as such. Master morality, inversely, weight actions on a scale of good or bad personal consequences. Nietzsche considers these two types of methods of thought integral in the formation of western society. Nietzsche critiques slave morality because slave morality breeds weakness, pessimism and skepticism. Nietzsche thought that master morality originated in the strong privileged few while slave morality originated in the underprivileged, weak masses. Because slave morality is a reaction to oppression, it villainizes its oppressors and seeks to cut them down to the slaves’ level. It also doesn’t seek to transcend what it is, by becoming dominant. Slave morality, according to Nietzsche, only serves to make slaves of the masters themselves. “A race of resentful men will of necessity eventually prove more prudent than the aristocratic race, it will honor prudence on quite a distance scale, as, in face, a paramount condition of existence (Nietzsche 20).” Nietzsche preferred master morality but did not believe that humans should adopt it as the ultimate code of conduct. He believed that a revaluation of societal moral code would correct the inconsistencies in both master and slave morality. Still, he proffered master morality because it was about strength from within, and was not petty and reactionary. In this way, Nietzsche traced the evolution of morals from slave morality, because of the word’s skepticisms and emphasis on reactionary measures of action. Part 2, Question 3 The problem of maintaining a healthy vibrant civic body was of great concern to political thinkers Jean-Jacques Rousseau and John Stewart Mill, though they both articulated this concern and the remedy for such in different ways. In Rousseau’s writings, and specifically in The Social Contract, he asserts that all the power belongs to the people, because the people were born free and like to assert their democratic freedoms and political power. The Social Contract itself is an effort to explore of political authority is possible. In Rousseau’s ideal social contract, everyone has freedom because all forfeit the same amount of freedom and impose the same duties on all. The freedoms of the people and contracting- or making social understandings within the laws of the state- are paramount to resisting the decay of the state. “A state if it is to have strength must give itself some solid foundation, so that it can resist the shocks that it is bound to experience and sustain the exertions that it must make to preserve itself” (Rousseau 92). Rousseau is concerned with establishing a healthy state intrinsically, and through this maintenance the state can safeguard against transgression. Rousseau emphasizes an equality in balances of power. Rousseau also claims that the size of the territory to be governed might decide the nature of the government, and warned against frivolous governing. “Frugality is equally necessary for a good and upright life in an individual and for a strong and healthy state” (Rousseau 17). A government, according to Rousseau, is only as strong as the people who make it, and this strength is absolute. The larger the territory, the more strength a civic body must be able to exert over the populace, who holds the ultimate role in a government’s failure or success. Mill, on the other hand, talks about how the individual holds the power in the coloration of society and government. This is the way of the government- patterned against an individual’s mentality- that is truly progressive. Mill is opposed to the whims of the majority, because society can be a terrible place based on mass, unchecked judgment and power. Mill thought that this was the current state of politics, and he was opposed to it. “In politics it is almost a triviality to say that public opinion now rules the world” (Mill 38). As individuals, we long for progress. “We are progressive as well as changeable: we continually make new inventions in mechanical things, and keep them until they are again superseded by better; we are eager for improvement in politics, in education, even in morals” (Mill 42). Mill extends this notion into the realm of politics, where we should be wanting continual progress, as well. Mill was a reactionary and reacted against the social control of the majority and the class systems in place. He considered this another symptom of a stagnant society- where power was held in few hands and the needs of some but not all individuals were articulated. Mill sincerely advocated individual decision-making over the self, and thought that this could be achieved and maintained through a multi-party system. “In politics, again, it is almost a commonplace, that a party of order or stability, and a party of progress or reform, are both necessary elements of a healthy state of political life” (Mill 27). The government, patterned to the likeness of the individual and an individual’s preoccupation with progress, would start as a good foundation of a government. A multi-party system tailored to the needs of the people would prevent against decay in the aim of progressivity within the government. Both Rousseau and Mill have highly influenced political thought, and both are absolutely valid points on the foundation of the government and the measures to prevent its decay. Part 3, Question 1 Both Machiavelli and Karl Marx valued history and used their value of history towards their very different political ideologies. Karl Marx was a German philosopher and economist whose ideas served as the foundation for a political society based on socialism and the worker. Marx thought that capitalism would only have negative effects on society, creating tension and civil disorder that would lead to a society’s destruction. The division of labor was one of the chief forces of history keeping the working classes down. Marx warns against abstracting history, making grand gestures without unqualified evidence. Marx continually argued for what would eventually be coined as “Marxism,” where socio-economic change would occur through organized revolutionary action of the working classes. He attained this viewpoint, however, from keenly observing and criticizing the struggles of the proletariat and the exclusionary nature of history. “Already we see how civil society is the true source and theatre of all history, and how absurd the conception of history held hitherto, which neglects the real relationships and confines itself to high-sounding dramas of princes and states” (Marx 57). Marx was sure that capitalism would end through the organized actions of an international effort against the bourgeois and privileged classes by the lower working classes, after such historical marginalization. The worker, sick of being exploited and rendered powerless and not important in the canon of world history, would revolt and evoke cyclical change. This revolt would lead to a more widespread and fair disbursement of power so that the worker would have the ultimate rights and values, as the mover and shaker of society. Machiavelli looked at the political leaders throughout history to inform his works and his own canon on leadership, The Prince. The history of successful leaders comes in their utter ruthlessness and their ability to be feared in order to establish control. “One rarely comes across a case in history in which a father not only sits on a tribunal and condemns his own sons to death, but is present at their death” (Machiavelli 393). This ruthlessness is absolutely essential and almost expected if one wants to become powerful. “Those, however, who are familiar with ancient history when the form of a government has been changed, whether from a republic to a tyranny or a tyranny to a republic, it isnt an all cases essential that exemplary action be taken against those who are hostile to the new state of affairs” (Machiavelli 393). Machiavelli explains that of course a ruling individual would like to be feared by some and loved by some, but it is impossible to truly embody both qualities. “It might perhaps be answered that we should wish to be both; but since love and fear can hardly exist together, if we must chose between them, it is far safer to be feared than loved…fear is bound by apprehension of punishment which never relaxes its grasp” (Machiavelli 58). Machiavelli’s point is that is it absolutely better to be feared because it is safer and puts the ruling party into a place of more control. To be loved is a less aggressive emotion, and one that is more vulnerable to the ruler. In this, the history of politics is important to Machiavelli because there are so many examples in which to prove his point, however harsh it might seem. Historically, a tyrannical, powerful ruler gives the most solid form of leadership, and establishes consistency in reign. “One would think him the embodiment of mercy, good, faith, integrity, humanity, religion…men judge rather on the eye than by the hand, for every one can see but few can touch” (Machiavelli 61). Both Machiavelli and Karl Max have hugely differing ways that they use history, but both value history in the proof of their philosophies. Part Four I feel like the most challenging people we have read so far have been Frederick Nietzsche. Nietzsche’s legacy is the foundation for the existentialist movement and postmodern philosophical thought. His most famous works include On the Genealogy of Morality and Beyond Good and Evil. Nietzsche’s work specifically challenged the idea of morality and the Christian-indoctrinated concept of God in society. Morality, like God, is not how humans perceive it, and is a construct of a weak. To Nietzsche, how the greater majority sees morality is based on a system of errors, thought patterns and weaknesses that extend to every part of a human’s life. “Morality today in Europe is herd-animal morality…this morality defends itself against possibility or thought” (Nietzsche 7). Nietzsche asserted that the traditional notion of Judeo-Christian Godliness or the idea of god is gone, leading to a loss of universal perspective on the world and individual life. Humanity has lost any sense of objective truth, so that nothing in life has any importance. Everything lack purpose when the structure of life isn’t in place, based on the errors of mankind and a false system of beliefs. “Life then played a trick that it is always known to play, of justifying itself, of justifying evil” (Nietzsche 42). The legacy and teachings of Nietzsche complicated my understanding of the work. There is a comprehension barrier that occurs when I read a lot of different writers who have different viewpoints than I do: ideologically, when I feel differently from the writer, it is harder to wrap my head around their ideas. I felt this way with Nietzsche a lot of the time. I feel like Nietzsche is very dark and doesn’t put a lot of credence or faith into the power of the people, something I feel very strongly about. I have a lot of faith, and like people and philosophy having to do with the goodness of people. Nietzsche doesn’t have a lot of faith in the people or in the roles of social conventions and sectors, like the government or structures already in place. I like that he continuously doubts, but his coldness is hard to read, and my experience with Nietzsche in differentiation with philosophers like Rousseau or Mill is something that is hard for me to understand. Still, Nietzsche was good for me to read. His writings- and the writings of people that are philosophically different than me- are historically significant and definitely expanded my horizons. Works Cited Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Discourses. New York: Penguin Classics, 1984. Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince. New York: Kessinger Publishing, 2004. Marx, Karl. Manifesto of the Communist Party. Martin Milligan, Ed. New York: Prometheus Books, 1988. Marx, Karl. The Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844. Martin Milligan, Ed. New York: Prometheus Books, 1988. Marx, Karl. The German Ideology. New York: International Publishers Co., 1970. Mill, John Stewart. On Liberty. New York: Longmans, Green & Co., 1921. Nietzsche, Friederich. Genealogy of Morals. New York: Courier Dover Publications, 2003. Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. The Social Contract. Maurice Cranston, Ed. New York: Penguin Classics, 1968. Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. Reflections on the Revolution in France. USA: MacMillian Publishing, 1890. Read More