Question 1
Hebert Marcuse suggests that historically, philosophy has assumed the role of safeguarding the interests of freedom and reason in a world that is relatively unfree and also unreasonable. Socrates can be considered as a guardian to the interest of reason and freedom. He introduced the world to the art of critical reasoning. In many circles, he is often hailed as the father of reason and logic. In an unreasonable world where man is simply concerned with victory over his fellow man when it comes to arguments, Socrates introduced the concept of critical and careful reasoning so as to acquire genuine knowledge and information. This led to the famous Socratic method of questioning. The Socratic Method is meant to help an individual to determine or establish the underlying beliefs behind their argument, as well as the extent of this individual’s knowledge. Through this method, the world once again becomes reasonable. Socrates was also a proponent of the freedom of one’s conscious. In fact, during his trial he mentioned that were he to be released by the court on the condition that does not question his fellow citizen’s views, he would not obey. This is clear evidence that he believed in freedom of conscious and also believed that it was an individual’s duty and right to resist when government or the state when it interfered with one’s freedom, In ‘The Prince’, some of Machiavelli’s writing can be seen as fulfilling the historical task of safeguarding the interests of freedom and reason. In his ideology of “reason of state”, Machiavelli suggests that the stability and wellbeing of any state are mandatory and the actions if the governments should be directed towards ensuring this is achieved. This includes even actions that would normally be considered as immoral and illegal. In this logic, Machiavelli is essentially teaching people not to be so close-minded but to instead look at the bigger picture. An immoral or illegal act by the government might cause an uproar by the public, but if the action in the long run ensures the stability of the state, that action is fully reasonable and people should use reason before judging it. Therefore, in regard to the irrationality of politics, his notion is that leaders must sometimes learn not to be always good and should sometimes put away ethical concerns of honesty, kindness or justice to ensure that the stability of the state is maintained.
Question 2
In the Discourse, Machiavelli one again the issue of politics by exploring the relationship between political good and merit. He shows that the good essentially deserve to rule, but he is also very fast to claim that being a good does not necessarily essentially entail being a full law-abiding citizen. In simple terms, being good y involves following good laws whenever they are present. As a citizen who would like to see political change, these views by Machiavelli suggest that for change to be effected in the society, the society member must be receptive of good men who acquire power even through malice because their final intentions might be good. On the other hand, society must reject evil men who profess to have good intentions as they enter into power or acquire authority because once they get into power there is no way that such individuals can keep their promise. As Machiavelli writes, it would be very rare for an evil man to act correctly especially when he has acquired power or authority by evil means. This argument appears to be in line with another argument presented by Machiavelli in ‘The Prince” where he once again appears to disapprove the nation of perfectly good rulers. Here is of the opinion that sometimes, even good rulers will have to turn a blind eye to elements of ethics. This is to maintain the stability of the state. This is also in line with Aristotle’s argument of the social welfare state where he advocates for measures to be taken to ensure the prosperity of all society such as the distribution of public accumulated revenues to the poor. This can only happen if the person in authority is a good leader and one who is not afraid to occasionally bend the law for the sake of public good. As a concerned citizen who would like to see political change, Machiavelli argument seems to be very plausible.
Question 3
Madison argues that the basic function of the republican is to only guard society against the oppression that may be brought about by its rulers but a republic also performs the function of guarding one section of the society from injustice that may be caused by another part of the society. Machiavelli and Aristotle would agree with this completely. Machiavelli on his part is very vocal about the maintenance of the stability of the state. To get a clear picture, it would perhaps wise to look at what stability entails. Stability refers to a state where all members of the society are at peace with each other and justice prevails everywhere. Machiavelli argues that in looking for state stability, leaders of a republic should not shy away from occasionally engaging in acts that may be seen as illegal and immoral. For example, a section of the society dispensing injustice on another section might require to be punished through acts that may be seen as immoral or illegal but if the intention is to maintain stability of the state and ensure that justice prevails, then Machiavelli “reason of state” takes precedence. Aristotle’s argument on democracy is based on his argument that people should not be allowed to covet other people’s goods, and the equality should be reduced. Inequality comprises of injustice on sections of the society and, therefore, in line with Madison’s argument, democracy can be used to reduce social inequality and hence enhance social injustice. It is the role of the republic to ensure that the social welfare of all it people is maintained and one of the way of doing this is therefore by ensuring that some sections of the society do not project injustice to other sections of the same society. Therefore, it is fair to state that Madison, Machiavelli and Aristotle share the same opinion when it comes to ensuring society justice.
