Jessica McNamara

Thomas

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

PHLU 301 WK7

09, December, 2017

The Ideal Political Order

 

The ideal political order does not, has
not and may never exist However it is not an uncommon daydream. Drafting
Utopia’s is one of the major ways to focus on issues and present solutions. In
this ideal political state, it is decided that the objective of a society
should be the thriving of its citizens and the role of government is to aid in
the development and organization of surroundings, values and other essential
necessities to ensure a prosperous, pleasant and pleasing life. For a society
to embody this we must consider the philosophical ideas of Plato, Aristotle, Nietzsche,
John Stuart Mills and Rawls. The ideal political order is one that accomplishes comprehensive
constancy, that has a governmental position based on ability, has negated the
need for religion and has a general uniting drive in nearly every account.

If the purpose of the ideal order is to
ensure a prosperous, pleasant and pleasing life, there would need to be a
standard of virtues within society. Virtues would be based on Aristotle’s
Ethics Table of Virtues and Vices which states a mean for various spheres of
actions or feelings (Irbe). While virtues of wisdom, courage, temperance, and justice would be valued as in Plato’s
Utopia (Bobonich)
so would Liberality, Magnanimity, Truthfulness, Wittiness, Friendliness and so
on. These virtues would be universal and due to this, much to the preference of
Nietzsche, the ideal political order
would forgo the need of religion as a result. Nietzsche argues that religion,
Christianity in specific created a slave morality in which people follow a herd
mentality (Academy). He believed that religion amounted to a mechanism for
hostile rejection and within the bounds of Christianity the weak created an
altered picture of reality in which weakness equaled goodness, sexlessness
equaled purity, submission to people one dislikes equals obedience and not
being able to take revenge equals forgiveness. In the absence of Religion
culture philosophy, art, literature, and
music would be valued and used to promote the concepts of community, ritual and
morality that religion used to fulfill. In a sense,
we would cash in scripture for culture. Here, in the ideal order, these mediums would serve a purpose and
that purpose would be to further the virtues and ethics of the established
order.

Much to satisfy Rawls veil of ignorance,
certain questions as to the safety of society would be responded to. As the old
saying goes, there would be a place for everything and everything would be in
its place. Housing would not be a concern in the ideal order as architecture
would be fairly reeled in and uniform ensuring that space is used sufficiently.
Consider the design of Venice in this sense where buildings are a majority of
the city but do not take away from the atmosphere of the place. The ideal order is less
materialistic but more focused on the sense of unity. Considering
there would still be tragedies in the surrounding world the media would address
these from a philosophical point of view. This is where philosophers would be utilized so as to bring
a more logical outlook on the events
surrounding society. Due to this the media would cease to be an agent of terror
or irrelevant puff pieces. No one would come away with feelings of terror or
rage because those presenting the news would exude a sense of sensibility that
would serve to guide people to the information that can best help them and
their country to prosper.

In the ideal order individuals would be involved in
work that not only feels meaningful but that leaves individuals with a sense of
fulfillment as they have contributed to society in only a way that they can. To
ensure that this would be the case time would be spent on
analyzing people’s personality from an early age in order to figure what kind
of work they would be best at. Plato proposes a Utopia
where, the Natural order would
rule, every man would do what naturally fits him to do and no one would desire
otherwise (Ryan). To ensure that every individual is in their rightful place
Plato offers breeding should be sanctioned to ensure that people are born into
the “right positions.” This notion of controlled procreation is fairly extreme
and I would like to offer a softer version. While relationships would not be
sanctioned individuals would be much more practical in choosing a mate basing
their decision on fact rather than feeling. In a sense, individuals will be
able to decipher how they are compatible or not and would base their decisions
to pair on how they compare. This more logical view to relationships would
ultimately ensure that they not only last longer but are more satisfying to
each individual.

 Developing each individual’s skill set and placing them where they would be
most beneficial as well as most fulfilled would eliminate those without a solid
hold in society and ultimately ensure that everyone serves a purpose. In this sense those who hold intellectual capacity are trained
for professions that require management and leadership skills while those with physical
strength are trained for professions that require manual labor and so on. Education
would cater to each individual need rather than an umbrella which generalizes.
As individuals grow within a society they will be assessed for certain skills
and placed in developmental courses respectfully. One of the main objectives
would be how to find
your calling and settle into an occupation you can be satisfied with and would
be a focus from an early age. On top of this, there would be classes that would pertain to the real world and
prepare youth for adulthood by teaching them to, defuse conflicts, know their own self, how to have
sustaining relationships and how to raise children. Adding these subjects to
the curriculum will ensure that each individual is able to function
sufficiently in society and will not feel confused or lost when they reach
adulthood.

Law
and order in the ideal political order would simply follow philosopher Jon
Stuart Mills Harm Principle. “The only purpose for which power can be
rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his
will, is to prevent harm to others” (Brink). This meaning that the law would
only intervene should the citizen issue harm against others. This would not
only entail physical harm but branch out to anything that may threaten society
and the individuals in it. Individuals will be given freedoms contingent on the
lack of harm to others. Should their actions create harm actions will be taken
accordingly as they will be judged by a group of their peers. This would be an
unbias unemotional process based solely on fact and each action would have an
equal consequence. Laws of equality would be determined in correlation with the
work of Rawls and his idea of the veil of ignorance where he argues we know
what type of society we would be happy to end up in if we had a choice and
therefore we know what needs to be fixed within society (Freeman). Each
individual would have the opportunity to be heard if they feel society is
lacking in some way although most would not have reason to as each aspect would
be catered to each person on an individual basis ensuring that everything is
has a place and everything is in its place.

We must take on the question of who would
lead in this virtuous society where everyone is in their rightful place. In
Plato’s “The Republic” he argues that an ideal society would be led by an
assembly of philosopher-kings (Ryan). These
philosophers would support the collaboration of all citizens of the society.
These individuals would be intellectual, dependable and prepared to live a
simple life, as well as embody the four cardinal virtues of wisdom, courage,
temperance, and justice. In the ideal society, these virtues and more would guide
citizens but philosophers would not necessarily be the head of the governmental
hierarchy. The ideal order would a complete democracy and subsequently,
individuals would know and trust that the government is acting to protect
what is mutually beneficial while remaining
a force enabling them to grasp their true potential. The fundamental purpose of
every aspect of this order is to incessantly help one another and grow both
individually and collectively.

The
largest conflict with the creating an ideal political order is the views of
others. What one may believe is sufficient another may see as heinous. The same
applies to the concepts of Utopia, for with every idea of utopia a dystopian
view can be seen because of the
spin of the outside perspective on it. In a day and age where people seem to
critic any government that comes their way it is difficult to say if any of
this would take hold. In the words of the journalist Peter Hitchens “Utopia is
only approached across a sea of blood and you never get there.”

 

 

           

            Works
Cited

Academy
of Ideas “Nietzsche and Morality: The Higher Man and The Herd.”
Nietzsche and Morality: The Higher Man and The Herd. N.p., n.d. Web. 6 Nov.
2017. .

Bobonich,
Chris, and Katherine Meadows. “Plato on Utopia.” Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy, Stanford University, 21 Mar. 2013,
plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-utopia/.

Brink,
David. “Mill’s Moral and Political Philosophy.” Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy, Stanford University, 9 Oct. 2007,
plato.stanford.edu/entries/mill-moral-political/.

Freeman,
Samuel. “Original Position.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford
University, 27 Feb. 1996, plato.stanford.edu/entries/original-position/.

Irbe,
George. “ARISTOTLE’S NICOMACHEAN ETHICS.” ARISTOTLE’S NICOMACHEAN ETHICS: Book
#1, www.interlog.com/~girbe/ethics1.html.

Ryan,
Alan. On politics: a history of political thought from Herodotus to the
present. Liveright publishing corporation, 2012.

 

Author