Power and Corruption Another major issue that Aquino discussed in his SONA was corruption and the inherent inequality of power. First, he discussed the numerous cases of corruption that occurred during the Arroyo administration. He then identified corruption as the root of people’s suffering, stating, “Kung walang corrupt, walang mahirap.” In response to this, his administration implemented long-term solutions to end corruption. He also emphasized the importance of passing the Anti-Dynasty Law in order to prevent certain individuals or families from gaining too much power. This can be related to Aristotle’s belief that the best ruler is a problem solver. Aristotle was chiefly concerned with finding the best and easily attainable political community, in the sense that it would help people get the best possible life (78). He also considered poverty as “the parent of revolution and crime” (80). He would, then, be in favor of how Aquino was searching for and implementing ways to solve poverty. …show more content…
Both of them believed that the state, since it was the highest community, was greater than the family and other individual interests; it was concerned with achieving what was good for the entire state and demanded the loyalty of everybody under it (76). Corruption, on the other hand, is concerned with satisfying individual interests, not the common good. It allows certain individuals to act as if they are above the state. It goes against Plato’s principle of the objective good, which states that every citizen should have his own equitable place and property in society. It goes against Aristotle’s belief that the law, not individuals, must be supreme
Accordingly, we see that politicians avoid uses of virtue or in other words principles for his own interest which include his own security. Finally, Machiavelli describes a point of view that those in power take on the nature of humans. To rather be safe and protect their interest Machiavelli shows that politicians corrupt principles we base public policy on by stating “ For it is a good general rule about men, that they are ungrateful, fickle, liars and deceivers, fearful of danger and greedy for gain”(866). In sum, Machiavelli depicts politicians taking different points of view on principles therefore public policy in
The laws are suppose to protect the society and its people, yet when the order of the government turns corrupt, then the validity of everything is at stake. As one can see, the corrupt laws placed Socrates in prison and he chose to abide by the impartial laws in order to be consistent and loyal to the
As we have established, if the primary role of the state is to secure and maintain the most possible happiness for the people, the surely an unjust state would not be a state capable of achieving this goal. Monarchies seem the ideal constitution to Aristotle because the virtue of the monarch is not diluted by the potentially selfish desires of others. However, this is also the least stable of the
Plato regarded justice as the true principle of social life. Plato in his day found a lot of evil in society. He saw unrighteousness rampant and injustice enthroned.
During the 1877 through 1920 the government's role wasn't really expanding, instead people were getting furious that the government weren't really doing anything to improve life so they started going on strikes, making unions, and bringing people of different cause together to try to force the government into being useful. However, this only led to political corruption, people saying they would do something to help the people and people would believe and put their trust into this "person" to only be blackmailed in the end. These "people" were called political bosses and they had their little organization or political machines and people would do them favors to gain jobs or etc. This growing "government" was a mixed bag for the American people,
Therefore, since Athens has a part to play in corrupting Socrates’s life as well as his mistaken visual of the truth, Socrates must understand that by obeying the state, he has done injustice to his soul for it will not be in true harmony. Furthermore he will be doing an injustice to the state because Plato would have established that, objectively, Athens laws are unjust and even if Socrates thinks that they are just, it is only because Socrates has been corrupted by
I believe that Plato believes that people are inherently good and they will do what is morally right and just for society. They will earn their right to power and ensure fairness for all to prevent the tyrants from trying to take control. Plato mentions three main arguments regarding
Corruption of Power “Being president doesn’t change who you are. It reveals who you are,” (Obama Michelle). Definition of corrupt, dishonest or illegal behavior, specifically by powerful people, such as government officials or police officers (Merriam-Webster). Many leaders are corrupt, but that doesn’t mean that power caused their corruption. They were probably like that before.
All in all, Aristotle’s philosophy made an astounding influence. In fact, it is in Aristotle’s Philosophy that Alexander the Great, which the former tutored in 347 BCE, laid down the foundations of the latter’s empire. Throughout Alexander’s rule, the influence of Aristotle, his mentor, can be seen in the former’s skillful and diplomatic handling of difficult problems throughout his career. When Alexander became a king, he had set forth on a Persian expedition to expand his empire.
Assuming that nobody wants to become corrupted, it follows that no one would knowingly corrupt those who they associate with. And because Socrates associates primarily with the youth of Athens, he would never knowingly corrupt them. Socrates was an outstanding of the Greek civilization. He defended himself against allegations of impiety and corruption of Athens youth. On the contrary, he provided strong arguments for his own defense
Plato’s republic aims to describe a just state, and in turn a just individual consistently throughout the text. By analogising the justice of the state and the justice of the individual, Plato attempts to demonstrate that a just society will breed just individuals. However, there are certain loop holes within his thought process that can lead one to wonder whether or not his ideas are pragmatic, and could function within a real societal structure- and if human beings given their inherently selfish nature, can adopt the traits necessary in order to achieve justice and the ideal state described in the Republic. Plato described the human soul as a “tripartite soul” where three main qualities seen in the human being, will also be reflected in the three classes of the ideal state. Reason is the highest of the three main qualities, and it forms the class of rulers and guardians.
1 INTRODUCTION Power and authority are the most important aspects of politics as such way of thinking comes a long way from the earliest thinkers such as Plato and Aristotle to mention few. They are the fundamental features of state in politics, focusing on who should have the power and authority over the people and who should rule them. During the time prior and after the birth of states, political authority has always been a major concern with regards to who should rule and how and who shouldn’t. Therefore this issues need to be addressed in a way that will at the end benefit the society. Plato is the thinker or theorist who came with addressing who should rule in a political environment in what Plato outlined that only Philosophers should rule.
The concept of the Noble Lie is presented by Plato in the Republic. In Republic, Plato is engaged in creating an ideal political community, through the noble lie. The Noble Lie, ironically, despite being a lie, is still recognized as ‘noble’ by Plato since it aims to promote social welfare and harmony amongst the citizens. Plato’s idea of the noble lie led to the division of citizens into three distinct categories, namely, the rulers, the auxiliaries and the workmen . This paper will argue that Socrates principle of the Noble Lie must be considered justifiable under circumstances in which it intends to achieve moral ends.
But since the ideal conditions do not exist for an ideal state, one should think of the best attainable only. For example: extreme wealth makes one arrogant and incapable of buying and extreme poverty makes one slavish and incapable of commanding. According to Aristotle that the state ids the best where the middle class is strong. Aristotle calls such a state by the name of polity.
Upon evaluating Aristotle’s ideals of citizenship, one finds a world wherein citizenship and freedom are one in the same – active participation in debate and deliberation in the political community through the exclusively human use of reason and speech capacities. Given this ideal of citizenship, it becomes the case that the ideas for human flourishing and thus the good life follow suit. For Aristotle, human flourishing comes from the cultivation of virtue that is a result of continued participation in the political community, or, continued intentional citizenship. For the good life, it is important to note that it is the continued practice of virtuous activity, rather than the obtaining, that is required. For, “…possession of virtue seems actually compatible with being asleep, or with lifelong inactivity, and, further, with the greatest sufferings and misfortunes; but a man who was living so no one would call happy…”