The Different Theories
of Society and Humankind
By: Therese Alcoseba
Firstly, we
have Plato. He is a famous Athenian
well-known for his theory of “Ideal State”. He is an idealist thinker and
thinks from an a priori perspective. For Plato, the State exists with the goal
to lead individuals towards what he calls the “Good Life”. In Plato’s theory,
men are not independent of one another, but need the aid and cooperation of
others in the production of the necessities of life. Happiness must be achieved
through what Plato calls “rational morality” wherein the happiness of man is
rational, not happiness directed to by reason. Leaders (or philosophers) in
Plato’s view have educated towards the good and happy life. According to Plato,
there are 3 great classes: the Artisans (at the lowest layer which comprise the
producers, craftsmen, farmers and artist that serve to promote the progress of economic
welfare of the State), the Auxiliaries (the military class over the Artisans
and are the defenders of the State to enforce peace and order), and the
Guardians (rulers of the State who own no private property to not be tyrant and
are philosophers who are morally upright and intellectually fit to achieve what
is only best for the State). My thoughts on Plato’s theory are that his unique view
of men and society are beautiful, especially when he mentioned the equality of
both men and women. I agree how the State should achieve “the Good Life” for
individuals in order to attain goodness and beauty of society. Then again, I
don’t think that this theory of his should be of any use in this world that we
are living in right now. Try imagining a world without arguments. Ideal isn’t
it? But we won’t have any hint of identity because of the rule: “what is mine
is yours” and “what is yours is mine”. Human selfishness is a part of us. It is
not something that should be taken away from us just to create an “ideal
State”.
Next, we have
Aristotle who is the most ardent student of Plato but unlike his teacher,
Aristotle is a realist while in contrast, Plato is an idealist thinker.
Aristotle believes that the State begins with the family and that human
selfishness is part of what we are in order to survive in this world. He would
call the State as a “creature of nature” and man as a “political animal” in
which men exists for the good life and participating for the welfare of the
State. Aristotle believes that slavery among men is free and others are slaves.
Slavery is basically based on the idea that men differ in intellectual and physical
capacities and are thereby fitted for different positions in society, for not
all men can be masters. However, Aristotle insists that it us unnatural for the
master to abuse authority over slaves and essentially, the interests of masters
and slaves are nothing but good life and is the same. Aristotle completely
rejects every single thing Plato had to say in his theory for it is inefficient
and of no use. Aristotle, in contrast to Plato, leadership is “the rule of
many” which means that the people take their share in ruling and being ruled
upon in turn. In comparison to Plato’s theory, Aristotle’s theory would be more
efficient and useful to the world today because it not only gives us a sense of
identity, but also having a government that would “actually work”. Not in the
sense of Plato that creating the perfect and ideal State is just wishful hoping
or what ifs. I liked how Aristotle mentioned on human behavior and saying that
it is a part of us while in contrast, Plato thinks that this will not create
the perfect State. Yes, he may be right, but idealism is far from realism. The
results are not the same. Realism will always be bound to happen while in
idealism is just something you would wish to happen.
Then of course, there is St. Thomas who is scholarly a disciple of Aristotle and has “Christianized”
Aristotle’s theory as it incorporates divine justification as the basis of
authority of State and government. The State, according to St. Thomas, is a
natural institution founded on the nature of man as a rational and social being
(which is actually pretty similar to Aristotle’s view on the State). St. Thomas
argues that every creature has its own end guided by necessity or instincts. But
man is not an isolated individual nor alone. He is a social or political being
by nature and born to live in a community with his fellows. The most evident sign
of the social nature of man is his expressing of ideas to men through the
medium of language. Also, both the society and the government are natural to men.
Like Aristotle, St. Thomas challenges man to be natural and he is guided by
reason. Reason is what will help ensure society’s true interest to its
attainment. St. Thomas also says that a true leader is one who has discerned
the true needs of the ruled and facilitated for the acquisition. Leaders are
justified by God the authority to care for the common good. Basically, I think
what St. Thomas is trying to say here is that we must be forever faithful and
love God. I think that this is a good thing, but like what Zaylee Jacalan said:
“We don’t have to be madly in love with the same God. Not all of us have the
same religion”. This is indeed true because we can’t always believe that God
will make the perfect society for us. Man has to be the one to do something
about this. It also sounds too idealistic for God to create the perfect State.
There was even a time wherein St. Thomas of Aquinas questioned the existence of
God, so how much more trying to live in a perfect society when it is pretty
much close to impossible? Man is imperfect and will always be. There is no
higher being other than God in my honest opinion.
Next up, we have Niccolo
Machiavelli who is an important figure of the Italian Renaissance and wrote
the famous treatise on politics The Prince which talks about the question of
the origin of political power. Machiavelli does not agree with conventional
theory, that power is only legitimized by moral character of a leader. He is
also known for what he calls: “solid armed force” that is the members of the
State are submissive because of the arms, peace and security will reign. Machiavelli
considers man as naturally selfish, brute, deceitful and disobedient, wherein
it came to the point that threat and violence is approved as long as it ensures
the safety and security of the general masses. Fear is the fundamental virtue of
the State (according to Machiavelli), in order to create peace and harmony to
both men and society. Leaders are also to have absolute control of any
circumstances rather than being controlled upon. In my honest opinion, I would
have to disagree with Machiavelli’s theory the most among all the different theories
of society and humankind because I really think that it would even make the
slightest difference if force was to be applied in our present day lives.
People will only riot. Men should not be treated like animals because even men
are intellectually capable of thinking what is morally right and what is morally
wrong. Enforcing violence and threats are the most absurd way of getting us to
create a perfect State. I am not saying that we have to be idealistic and all
but, what I am trying to say is that violence is never the solution. At least,
this is what I think. Men should be treated right and we have to create a State
without much pressure put onto us.
We then have Thomas
Hobbes. He is a natural law theorist who also thinks that every man is
naturally selfish. In his own opinion, how to stop this egoistic tendency to
secure the safety of the State shall be the main discourse of Hobbes in his masterpiece
Leviathan. Leviathan is an image of what Hobbes would call “body politic”. An example
would be a State that has strength and authority far greater than that of the
natural tendency of any individual to be selfish. Hobbes sees that society is
always besieged by what he calls the “state of nature” which means anarchy,
wars amongst individuals or groups resulting from man’s selfishness and natural
tendency to survive. Hobbes, unlike Machiavelli, sees that continual violence
would threaten the very root cause of anarchy, which is the self-interested
desire to survive. No individual could ever survive ultimately. Hobbes says
that someone must settle the argument in order to prevent endless war. He
refers this arbitrator as Leviathan or State. He also mentions how only the
State must hold the monopoly of power. Unlike Machiavelli’s armed force, Hobbes’
Social Argument are only involved to things that involved parties agreed to is
the source of fear. It is true that Thomas Hobbes initiates on the division of
power of the State, thus assuring citizens of the proper application of power
free from absolutism and dictatorship. But, I don’t agree with his theory
because he is saying that: “We need a ruler that is beyond that of an ordinary
human in order to stop conflict among men”. Even if that is so, war is
INEVITABLE. There will be war ESPECIALLY when the ruler has an enemy. Who wouldn’t
initiate a fight if there are enemies that are bound to ridicule you and mock
you to fight and says how you can’t even fight because you need to be the
perfect role model for men right? Well, if it were me, I would be enraged and
start war immediately! In conclusion, it is pretty idiotic if he won’t be
enraged even though he is the perfect body because remember what Aristotle
said? “Human selfishness is natural. It is part of who we are”. I mean, even
the perfect ruler would have that and act on his on selfishness once he is
angered right?
Lastly, there is Baron
de Montesquieu who proposes for a proper application of power in his famous
The Spirit of the Laws and classifies the power of the government into 3
layers: the legislative, the executive, and the judicial. The legislative power
rests on the enactment of amendment of laws. Second, the executive power
includes making peace or war, establishes public security, and provides safety
against invasions. Third, the judicial power includes the punishing of
criminals and determines the disputes that arise between individuals. He says
that this shall prevent individuals from holding too much power and tyranny.
Montesquieu also theoretically shares with the nineteenth century English
Catholic historian Lord Acton’s maxim, “Absolute power corrupts absolutely”. I
really love Montesquieu’s theory and it is so brilliant that our world right
now is using his theory! Well, not all but most of us around the world are
using it. I like the way he divide it to avoid being tyrant because this is one
of the major problems of society. A government that is full of tyrant people. They
overexert their powers and abuse man and create society into a place full of
trash. The words I use may be exaggerating or over the top but it is true
right? Actually, even until this very moment of our lives, we have never seen A
PERFECT STATE. Again, it’s something that will not be bound to happen to us
imperfect beings. We can only hope for the best. Going back to the main point,
I think that man is happy and society has become a better place to live in
thanks to the theory given to us by Baron de Montesquieu.
