The Purpose of Politics (Research Paper Sample)

Instructions:

The class is political theory, 2nd year level a political science course
Title: Make sure that your title reflects clearly and concisely the topic of your paper.
E.g. “A Critique of Machiavelli’s Concept of Virtu”
“Essay #1” is NOT a suitable title!
Thesis Statement: Have a clear thesis that states a position on the issue and clearly state that thesis in the opening paragraph. It’s certainly acceptable to write something like “I will argue that…” (I use this clear, no-nonsense approach in much of my own writing)
Introductory/Concluding Paragraphs: While I am open to various ways of writing introductions, I think that a good into paragraph will have 3 essential features: 1.a brief explanation of the topic, 2.a thesis statement, 3.a roadmap—i.e. two or three sentences which describe the structure of the paper.
In your conclusion, it is often useful to say why resolving the particular concern you’ve addressed in the essay matters in a larger philosophical sense. Additionally, there is a chance to ask one or two further questions, to suggest lines of thought or evaluation that should be taken up by others. But these are just suggestions.
Stay focused on the question/thesis. Try not to get side-tracked by describing every interesting (or uninteresting) thing about the text or view you’re considering. Say only what you need to say in order to describe the relevant aspects of theory and to develop and defend your thesis. (At the same time, don’t oversimplify—the views we consider in the class are complex and nuanced and should be treated carefully in your papers)
Avoid sweeping statements: Statements like “Philosophers for centuries have debated the meaning of justice”…are padding, they don’t offer information that is relevant to the topic that people don’t already know. Moreover, statements like that indicate that you don’t know what to say and that you’re trying to fill pages. In the same way, avoid the use of unnecessary biographical information that is not relevant to your particular topic.
Write clearly: your writing should focus on the idea that you want to express, not on the words that you have chosen to express those ideas. To that end, you should avoid excessively flowery language. And you should keep sentences to a reasonable length. If you find yourself writing 5 line sentences and page-long paragraphs, you’ve probably either confused yourself or your readers. Each sentence should make a point and each paragraph should develop an idea through a set of interconnected and well-organized sentences.
Don’t plagiarize: if you’re unsure about what plagiarism is, then consult the university guidelines or come and see me. To be clear: cutting and pasting from the internet is one example of plagiarism.
Sources and citations: this is a research paper and I recommend a minimum of two pieces of secondary literature (journal articles and/or books) on the assigned topic. You will be graded on how well you demonstrate an understanding of the issue and what the philosophers in question have to say about it as well as on your own ability to critically evaluate the claims and arguments made by the philosophers. NOTE: Do NOT use Sparksnotes, Wikipedia and similar internet sites. Also, do NOT quote from the lectures.
Chicago Style is what I recommend for referencing but you can use any established format in the Humanities or Social Sciences (what’s important is to include author, title, publisher, translator, page/line, year, etc…) Get used to referring to the line of the original text when citing Plato and Aristotle, e.g. 494c.
Concentrate on arguments rather than opinions/assertions: anyone can express an opinion; in political philosophy what matters is how good the arguments are in support of a given opinion. You want to take your reader from a set of uncontroversial premises to a well-argued (and perhaps controversial) conclusion about the issue at hand). What reasons and arguments could you offer to convince him or her that your argument is better than an alternative?
Concentrate on normative arguments: In political philosophy, one of our main concerns is with how we ought to arrange our collective social and political lives. What principles should we adopt to regulate social and political life? This is to be distinguished from questions and arguments about how the world works or what is. Your focus should be more on the normative and less on the explanatory or empirical. Of course we want our answers to normative questions to be not unrelated to reality, but just because something isn’t done a certain way now, doesn’t mean that we don’t have good reason(s) for endorsing that alternative. For example, I think that it’s true that murder will never be eliminated from any society on earth once and for all. But that fact does little to shake my normative conviction that people ought not to murder others. Avoid using arguments then that take the form: “X is objectionable because unrealistic”.
Take the views of the philosophers seriously: avoid attributing foolish views to the thinkers and/or claiming that a given view is stupid without very strong support on your part. If, when reading, something seems mistaken to you, assume that you’ve misread and read again. Nothing is more frustrating than reading a philosophy paper that is littered with opinion, diatribe, and polemic, and shows no evidence of a sincere grappling with the views presented by the thinkers in the texts and with the arguments offered by those theorists to back up their claims.

source..

Content:

The purpose of politics
Insert name:
Institution name:
Due date:
Aristotle and Machiavelli had different political visions and accounts of the political systems. These personalities were products of different times. Aristotle lived during the end of the Golden age of Greece whereas Machiavelli lived during the end of medieval Europe. Their advices and ideas have endured the centuries and are still significant and hold the truth in the modern days. Despite living different periods of time, their philosophies and ideological perspectives could not have been much different, although there is a clear difference on how they present their issues. While Aristotle believed that the main goal of politics is to assist society to attain the good life, Machiavelli considered that the main goal of politics is to maintain stability and power. At this juncture, it is apparent that both Aristotle and Machiavelli have developed powerful arguments concerning the role of politics in the society. This paper aims to examine to the purpose of politics on views of both Aristotle and Machiavelli. The paper also aims to identify which philosophers offer a more persuasive case for a proper relationship between ethics and politics.
Aristotle and Machiavelli present two different accounts of political life. Aristotle’s account is based on the natural disposition of human beings to live in mutual association with the polis (city-state) being at the top of this hierarchy of associations to promote common good in the society. Machiavelli gives a different account; he believes that political life depends on fortune and circumstances rather than being any necessary state. Machiavelli considered political life as a means to an end while Aristotle viewed political life as an end itself. Their accounts appear to have impacts on the real politics and political life on the society. While Aristotle viewed the world as it ought to be, Machiavelli viewed the world as it practically should face reality.
Aristotle considered polis as an important element in the society since it is a natural association that emanates from other associations. One vital association is household (family) which collectively forms polis. In these associations, there are ruling elements that naturally rule others, and there are ruled elements are naturally ruled. This can be illustrated well by in the household, the husbands rule the wives and parents rule children while, in the society, masters rule slaves. Aristotle emphasizes the need of the ruling element to govern by intelligence and virtue. Moreover, he considers the need of striking a balance of the need of maintaining a harmonious relationship between the soul and the body. For Aristotle, in order for a person to lead a harmonious life, the soul must rule the body by rationality and virtue. Aristotle explains how these associations such as the household and state occur naturally in order to meet human needs. Whereas the polis occurs naturally and brings people together, its parts are joined for the aim of achieving the good life. Aristotle develops a teleological argument by considering the polis and human beings in terms of the purpose and functions they play in the society.
Machiavelli developed a new theory that detached from ethical codes. His description of government is an efficient, practical machine, which creates its own rules to suit the situation at hand rather than abiding by morals and laws. Machiavelli believed that the purpose of political power is to develop and maintain itself, and it has nothing to do with people’s welfare. It has nothing to do with wrong and right, ideology or principles; these are associated with means to an end, but the power is the goal. According to Machiavelli, a ruler should do whatever it takes to expand his power and maintain his power. His views concerning politics are mainly for the mechanics of government; a means through which the state can become stronger and policies meant to expand the power. Military and political measures are the main objects of Machiavelli’s interest. Whether a policy is lawless, faithless or cruel, Machiavelli treats it as a matter of indifference, although he knows that such qualities may react on its political success. He argues that a ruler can skillfully use immoral acts to meet his ends.
Aristotle’s politics is strongly grounded in the world of polis (city-state). He believed that any state is constituted of similar basic element of a polis: men administer over the functions of the state; slave, women, noncitizens labors and foreigners perform other important duties to keep the city functioning. In the polis, citizens are involved in responsibilities for the common good of the state. All citizens are advised to take an active role in the running of the state because they strongly identifying themselves with the polis to which they belong. The strong bond between city-state and citizens justifies why Aristotle regards active citizenship as an essential characteristics of the good life. Aristotle emphasized that people can only realize their humanity and rationality as citizens of the city-state. He explains that by necessity fully realized humans are political animals.
Machiavelli developed a way of governing a state which is completely different from human expectation during his time. He believed that the ruler should have the sole power of determining all aspects of the state and enact policies into effect that would serve his best interests. Machiavelli promoted a secular society, and he considered that morality was not essential. His advice appeared immoral and harsh, but he developed these views from the concern of unstable political condition in Italy during his time. It is known that citizens play a vital role for the well-being of the state. However, Machiavelli disregarded such an ideology. Machiavelli distrusted citizens and questioned the loyalty of people. He advised the ruler that people are wretched creatures who are betrayal. Although, he did not encourage the prince to mistreat the citizens, he advised the prince to act on his best interests. Machiavelli considered that it would be better for a prince to be feared by the citizens based on his own principality. He believed that citizens are deceivers, liars, fickle and ungrateful people; they shun danger, but are greedy of taking advantage of opportunities. He characterized citizens as self-centered and unwilling to work for the best interest of the state. He argued the when the prince is in problems, citizens turn against him. Machiavelli, therefore, advised the prince to deceive his citizens willingly in order for him to win the honor. According Machiavelli, a prince can win the honor by encouraging and appreciating efforts of people who excel in their professionals and businesses. In doing this way, the prince enhances prosperity of the state. Although, the prince acts in deception when carrying out these measures, he wins trust and honor among the citizens particularly those who were opposing him.
In certain cases, Aristotle’s politics is considered as communitarian since it stresses on the well-beings of the community above the well-being of the individual. Aristotle regarded human beings as political animals since humans cannot be fully humans without actively participating in activities of a city-state. He recommended education and justice as elements that can make the state becomes stronger if they are implemented. His concept of distributive justice is still relevant today and rest on the fact that wealthy and honors should be distributed according to merit so as the best individuals obtain the highest rewards. Aristotle defined politics a practice science since it concerns with making people prosper. The aim of his politics was to achieve the utmost purpose of life which is a virtue. Aristotle believed that the most significant role of politics is to make constitution (laws). He wanted the livelihood and wellbeing of the citizens to be reflected before laws are enacted.
Machiavelli’s approach is quite different; he contended that rather than there being necessary and natural conditions as Aristotle presented, political life is a product of fortune and circumstances. Machiavelli believed that classical theorists (like Aristotle) were living in fantasies concerning politics and statehood. Machiavelli regarded these classical theorists as have failed to put into consideration of practical realities of political positioning, rebellion and revolts happening in the society rather than developing their own idealized opinions of politics. Machiavelli explicitly detached from the approach that classical philosophers adopted and implicitly introduced real politics for practical implications. A good illustration is seen when Machiavelli said that a ruler should learn not to be good in order to survive and maintain power. Machiavelli reasoned this way based on the fact that acting good would lead the downfall of a ruler.
Aristotle justified that the benefits should be accorded to individuals with merit and defined merits based on suitable qualities. Aristotle was aware of abuse of power and corruption in the society and therefore emphasized the need of all citizens to be accountable. Aristotle advocated that the written legislation has greater authority than the ruling class. This was a way of saying nobody is above the law, and therefore written law provides guidance on how governance should be exercised. The primacy of the law is a good example of Aristotle’s influence in the modern world.
Machiavelli believed that a ruler should not live under obligation of ethics morals and religious convictions. He considered that a ruler is above these things; the ruler is beyond evil and good. Machiavelli believed that the rule has the obligation to do whatever esse...

Get the Whole Paper!

Not exactly what you need?

Do you need a custom essay? Order right now:

Order

The Purpose of Politics (Research Paper Sample)

Other Topics: