Abstract This paper examines the book "The GoodSociety" by Robert Bellah et al. which argues that social problems faced by all today are mainly due to the disappointment of institutions, as well as the collective response of the society as a whole. It discusses a proposed new democratic society being an exclusive one in world order and gives a social psychological analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of this ideal world. It argues how in order to be "the goodsociety", individuals should be left free to follow their private satisfactions autonomously of others.
From the Paper "However, another feature of this book to which the author Bellah has argued and may not be much agreeable is when he talked about the new democratic society directly being an exclusive one in world order. He gave a social psychological analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of society that have been proficiently interpreted the necessity for a new public philosophy by asking the question, "Is this great society a good society?" (Andre, 1992). Here the argument lies that no matter how the society is, it always contain its weaknesses and strengths, so the question of author "Is this great society a good society"? does not give a positive impression on the reader's mind."
Tags: homelessness, joblessness, economy, work, government, politics, society
Abstract The paper discusses how Robert Bellah in "The GoodSociety" reflects a progressively communal view of the nature of conservative trends towards individualism and segregated communities. The paper explains how in this manner, the idiom of the Labeling Theory becomes apparent as people of societies nationally and internationally are being denied adequate resources and funding to help change these perspectives from an outward, governmental point of view.
From the Paper "The aim of this book review will analyze the major concepts of public involvement within the American justice community, and how this affects American political issues in "The Good Society" by Robert Bellah. The "progressive communalist" view of the author reflects the diversity needed to help create stronger justice in regards to economics, crime and race issues in America. The main theme of greater public participation in forging a more ethical justice system is the main objective of Bellah's critical text. The initial chapter of this book "Making Sense of It" reflects the diversity of American life, but offers a greater lack of racial justice that has become part of the social and political milieu of American life."
Abstract This paper examines how Robert Dahl has devoted his professional life to the study and analysis on the issues of democracy and how among his countless publications is the book "After the Revolution: Authority in a goodSociety". It looks at how the central theme of this volume is the discussion about the problems, strengths and weaknesses of democracy and democratic authority. It show how in the same way as philosophers Plato, Aristotle, Hobbes and Rousseau did, Dahl explores two basic questions in the world as to: who governs and to what ends do they govern. Also, it analyzes some questions over the limits of power given to people and explains he meaning of justice and sovereignty.
From the Paper "Further, the Criterion of Economy states that ?a process my be less perfect than other alternatives according to the first two criteria but, on balance, more satisfactory simply because it economizes on the amount of time, attention, and energy.? Dahl said, that ideal state is never reached in practice; therefore we are satisfied with the most acceptable, closest one to ideal, solution, which is an optimal system for making decisions. Finally, the Principle of Affected Interests states that ?everyone who is affected by the decisions of a government should have the right to participate in that government.? As was mentioned earlier, Dahl wrote that most associations use some sort of majority rule to make decisions. Hence, the all of the three criteria and the Principle of Equality my be violated for some members of the association. Thus, it needs to be considered how will democracy protects minorities. Dahl suggests three modifications to his fundamental criteria and principles."
This paper reviews John Kenneth Galbraith's history of economics "The GoodSociety: A Humane Agenda", which he wrote when he was nearly ninety years of age.
1,715 words (approx. 6.9 pages), 0 sources, 2005, $ 55.95
Abstract This paper explains that, knowing the cruelties man has inflicted during this century, much of it due to economic reasons, the reader of John Kenneth Galbraith's "The GoodSociety: A Humane Agenda" wonders whether the concept of a "goodsociety" was a tongue-in-cheek effort to prove to his readers that this "goodsociety" through a higher standard of life is an unattainable goal. The author points out that this book, which demonstrates the demise of Keynesian economics, is more a morality tale than a book on economics. The paper relates that the difficult task Galbreath sets for himself is to differentiate between what is "perfect" and "ideal" and what is achievable, or in his terms---between the "agreeable irrelevant" and the "ultimately possible", which may well contradict each other.
From the Paper "It is idealistic, of course, for anyone trained in economics to proclaim, as Galbreath does, that a good society must provide an upward chance for all, and a reliable economy to sustain employment. This would obviate the "business cycle" of inflation, stagflation, even minor recession. He is, one might comment, a little simplistic when he states the over-obvious: that a steady flow of demand is a vital factor in keeping business going. Of course, if stores sell products customers want, or manufacturers produce goods that are so reasonable to purchase, then the business cycle is on the upswing. What is missing in this idea of a "steady flow" is that manufacturers, given more and improved technology, can now produce higher quality goods more rapidly with robotics and computers that require little or no human assistance, other than supervision. Thus, economics creates the goods at the expense of employment. It is called "downsizing", a word that brings terror to workers and managers alike."
Abstract The paper discusses Hobbes' ideas of leadership as the means to a goodsociety by manipulating or instilling fear and Machiavelli's emphasis on how a ruler should appeal to human nature in creating order. The paper explains how both theorists believed that the natural state of affairs without leadership was bound to be chaos. The paper discusses how Hobbes saw political violence as a clear sign of a social order falling back into the natural state of chaos, just as Machiavelli perceived this violence as a sign of a ruler having failed to do what was required to preserve and protect a social order.
Outline:
Introduction
Machiavelli on the Ruler
The GoodSociety Conclusion
From the Paper "Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527) and Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) knew turbulent times. Machiavelli experienced the 1498 French invasion of Florence and the flight of the Medici family, and Hobbes's views owed to the very violent English Civil War, his The Leviathan's ideas said to have been achieved by the War's time in the human personality as motivated by fear. This influenced his ideas of leadership as the means to a good society by manipulating or instilling fear. Machiavelli shared an emphasis on how a ruler should appeal to human nature in creating order. The natural state of affairs without leadership was bound to be chaos."
Tags: political, violence, social, order, chaos, ruler, power, government
Abstract In this article, the writer notes that the 17th century British political philosopher Thomas Hobbes presented in his Leviathan a theory of justice and political order based on reason. The writer then points out that in the course of his argument, Hobbes creates the figure of the Fool who contradicts Hobbes' theory of justice and social order and advocates in its place a view of society based upon the selfish pursuit of individual advantage. The writer discusses that while Hobbes' Fool is a rhetorical device designed to better allow Hobbes to present his arguments, many of the views Hobbes' attributes to this Fool, resemble those of the Renaissance Italian political philosopher Machiavelli.
From the Paper "The 17th century British political philosopher Thomas Hobbes presented, in his Leviathan, a theory of justice and political order based on reason. In the course of his argument Hobbes creates the figure of the "Fool" who contradicts Hobbes' theory of justice and social order and advocates in its place a view of society based upon the selfish pursuit of individual advantage. While Hobbes' Fool is a rhetorical device designed to better allow Hobbes to present his arguments, many of the views Hobbes attributes to this Fool resemble those of the Renaissance Italian political philosopher Machiavelli."
Abstract The philosophies of Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau encompass a spectrum of thought on how a state should be governed. This paper discusses how at one end is the cynicism of Machiavelli and, to some extent, Hobbes. Their ideas are countered by the democratic optimism of Locke and Rousseau. It shows how, at the heart of each of these essays is each philosopher's assessment of the fundamental character of people and how much they can be trusted to govern themselves.
From the Paper "Throughout The Prince moral codes seem irrelevant to the business of running a state. The survival of the sovereign is the highest priority. At times Machiavelli seems to be writing guidelines for tyrants. According to him, a prince is safer if he is feared rather than loved. It is easier, Machiavelli maintains, for people to offend, or betray, someone they love than someone they fear. How is that fear instilled? ?Fear is maintained by a dread of punishment which never fails.? ( Santoni 120 ).
In Leviathan , Hobbes, like Machiavelli, stresses the importance of a powerful sovereign, however his philosophy of government seems less tyrannical than that of Machiavelli. ?During the time when men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war, and such a war as is of every man against every man.? (Santoni 143)."
Abstract This paper examines how Plato and Thomas Hobbes address many of the same subjects and set about to define many of the same basic concepts despite the substantial differences in their philosophies and the innumerable differences between the two societies in which they lived. It looks at how the common interest of the two men is the ways in which human societies are constituted and what form of rule should be instituted in those societies to promote welfare.
Abstract This political study analyzes the major ethical and moral foundations for governing that reside in the philosophy of Thomas Hobbes, Aristotle, and Machiavelli. By understanding the premise of an ethical government in Aristotle's point view, the writer shows that the basis for a republican ethical and morality systems are a function of good political structures in government. However, the writer points out that Thomas Hobbes and Machiavelli disagree with this point of view, finding that self-preservation for elites is the foundation of most governing bodies through the reality of human nature. Further, the writer notes that aside from the dogmatic philosophy of Aristotle that seeks to propose ethical standards in government, both Hobbes and Machiavelli are realists in their understanding of human nature and the often-cruel conflicts that reside within the quest for power.
From the Paper "... the critical philosophical premise to human nature that ultimately helps one realize how persons that attain power utilize it not for the greater good, but for the self-preservation of the person that is not satisfied with their own portion of power. In this manner, Hobbes provides the deeper insight into governing bodies and how they function, since it is often the issue of self-preservation that often dictates government, whether it be called republican, monarchy, etc., and that power forces men to abide by constitutions and rules only for their own greater personal success. "
Abstract A look at these philosopher's views on the nature of human relationships, how it is that we join together to form societies, what the best form of human society might be, and the ways in which what is natural in human nature can be overcome by the goodness that lies in collective action ? or exacerbated by the concatenation of so many humans working in concert with each other.
From the Paper "While both of these philosophers will reject the idealized image of "imagined republics" ? both as ideals and as possible realities ? Machiavelli proves himself in the end to be more of an heir to their writings than does Hobbes ? which is hardly surprising, given that Machiavelli, as a writer of the Italian Renaissance is much more clearly an historical heir to the classical thinkers."
Tags: human, nature, relationship, philosopher, society
Abstract This paper will examine the political philosophies of Machiavelli and Hobbes in application to the question of the use and abuse of power in "Gladiator". It will be seen that Machiavelli and Hobbes would agree that the insane villain, Emperor Commodus, was actually an insightful political leader. While the movie collapses the distinction between the personal and the political - with the whining, incestuous Commodus contrasted unfavourably with the "family values" of Maximus - neither Machiavelli nor Hobbes considered personal morality of any significance in the arena of political life.
Abstract This paper examines, compares and contrasts the theories of Thomas Hobbes and Niccolo Machiavelli regarding man and politics. The paper focuses on Machiavelli's formulation of human nature, virtue and politics. Then the paper looks at Hobbes' dissatisfaction with Machiavellian political theory.
From the Paper "Two of the best known modern philosophers who have taken up questions regarding man and politics or man and his life in civil society are Niccolo Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes. Machiavelli writing almost ...."
Abstract This paper relates that Thomas Hobbes viewed (1) man as being egoistic, self-interested and always aiming towards self-preservation; (2) yet, man can act in ways that are not selfish to preform civic duties and help society and (3) man is in a state of constant war with one another due to the fact that immediate authority is unattainable. The author stresses that Hobbes says that self-preservation is pre-eminent in the nature of man and anything done to keep that motive is humanistic and should be done without recourse. The paper explains that, to Aristotle, (1) mankind is climbing a ladder to reach an end goal of happiness; (2) climbing the steps of the ladder is done in a way that is good for the rest of the community; however, (3) self-sufficiency is the highest virtue of all.
From the Paper "Aristotle wrote comparatively little on tyranny and its affects on society. According to Aristotle, either the one, the few, or the many rule. Human beings are by nature political and will suffer greatly under despotism or a tyrannical monarchy. A polis that would concern itself only with the negative functions of protecting persons or property is not truly a polis in Aristotle's eyes. Nature's role in the polis was to positively develop human potential and create habits. Despite his conservatism and defending monarchy, Aristotle often displayed genuine fait in the political participation and intelligence of ordinary citizens."
Tags: self-sufficiency, self-preservation, war, property, society
Abstract This paper analyzes Machiavelli's notions of a good leader, which are based on his strength, cunning and intelligence -- and not on his notions of justice or commitment to kindness. The paper contrasts these ideas, which are codified in Machiavelli's book "The Prince", with those of Plato and Thomas More, which were upbeat and idealistic.
From the Paper "To Machiavelli, a stark realist, Plato and Thomas More's upbeat idealism is a misguided attempt to credit the human race with more than they could ever achieve. The reality of it is, and Machiavelli saw this, that while Plato's writings may affect some people, and may change the thinking of small groups, it will never affect the masses so much as to cause change. Even in the time of Plato or Machiavelli there were just too many people set in their ways to hope to create a just society free of the corruption of at least one man. Machiavelli got it right when he said, "For he who wants to be a good man all the time will be ruined among so many who are not good" (Thompson 281). Based on how we live, and how we have lived for so long, anyone attempting to implement an idealistic society is doomed to fail at the hands of those who do not share his ideals."
Abstract This paper focuses on Machiavelli's quote that a political leader needs to learn how "not to be good." In comparison, the writer uses President Clinton as a political leader who chose a similar path. The first part of this review looks at the piece from Machiavelli's viewpoint. The second half takes the points raised in the books and tries to relate them to the modern day example of Bill Clinton. The writer admits their opinion is tainted by their personal dislike for President Clinton but still attempts to make use of the comparison.
From the Paper "Political leaders are constantly struggling to be good. However, Machiavelli wrote "For how we live is so far removed from how we ought to live, that he who abandons what is done for what ought to be done, will rather learn to bring about his own ruin than his preservation," (ch. 15, p. 84). Here, Machiavelli acknowledges that he is a political realist. He is saying that he finds traditional standards of morality useless as practical advice. Machiavelli goes on to say that "A man who wishes to make a profession of goodness in everything must necessarily come to grief among so many who are not good."
Tags:good, morality, standards, compromise, clinton
