Introduction to Political Philosophy

POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

Introduction to Political Philosophy: Reflection Essay

Political philosophy is important for interpreting how divisions of political power work for the public good, how rights and duties are fulfilled, and how freedom comes in the course of either subjugating or subduing the citizens. The policies formulated following the Constitution are either for the personal interests of those in power or for the public interest, which is still under debate by several political philosophers. The nature, scope, and legitimacy of the public institutions remain under scrutiny within this discipline of study so that their interdependence and relationship can be unraveled with complete clarification.

Reflection on Socrates’ Belief about Exercising Authority

When Plato’s character Socrates told us that rulers do not rule for their own sake but only to promote the interests of the subjects. It meant that it was for the benefit of the people. It does not suggest that rulers do not have their motives in ruling, such as money-making, but a good person would only want that any person worse than him does not rule people (Annas, 1981, p. 49). If so happens, it would bring a curse over the people rather than an advantage. Socrates believed money-making could be considered a fake skill while ruling the subject should be carried out with an unselfish spirit.

Reflection on Immanuel Kant’s Belief about Limit to Personal Freedom

Despite being free, Immanuel Kent believed that there was a limit to freedom. Using workable general law, one can exercise his freedom until someone else’s freedom is not hurt (Olsson, 2014, p. 44). He must exercise the same right as is the right of the others. He should have boundaries applied for himself as are for the others.

Reflection on John Stuart Mill’s Idea of Performing in Public Functions

Apart from becoming moral and compassionate by performing in a public administration office, pursuing personal interests should not be the only goal. More suitable, technical efficiency could be gained from performing public functions since the position holder would know how to transform inputs into outputs or make effective use of the available resources (Manzoor, 2014). With this technical efficiency comes shrewdness in handling human capital, technology, and crucial functions of the government for running the country with a balance and enhancing economic growth (Pham et al., 2022).

Reflection on Lenin’s “Pure Democracy”

Lenin held that pure democracy is a hoax since it is done to mislead people that the process of having the rightfully elected is ethically representative (Marxists.org, n.d.-a). The present-day democracy, however, is utterly opposed to this held belief. The ‘bourgeois’ element that has become an essential part of democracy distorts the political and authoritative working of the country (Marxists.org, n.d.-a). The exploiters of the state come in elective power in the name of democracy where people keep thinking they have been rightfully voted by them only. It is done to conceal the genuine facts and still carry on to exploit the state power for real freedom and equality.

Reflection on Alexis De Tocqueville’s Main Evil of Democratic Institutions in the US

Alexis believed that the democratic government makes short-lived laws as those in power do not exercise them but expect to be followed by those who are governed. The same evil embedded within the U.S. is embedded within its social roots; therefore, the laws are temporary (Marxists.org, n.d.-b). Another evil is the accomplishment of wishes by those in power in the U.S. and fewer contributions to democratic stability. One more evil is the unlimited power of the majority in the U.S., even if it is for electing a government, a judge, or even when a public servant does wrong and for his punitive consequences (Marxists.org, n.d.-b).

Reflection on Benjamin Constant’s Definition of Modern and Ancient Liberty

The constant thought that ancient liberty was exercised when they collaborated to form collective power for which persistent participation is required (Lumowa, 2010, p. 392). Modern freedom exhibits more of the individual freedom, which could be for their pleasures and also applied to the institutions of the state in the same manner. The danger of ancient liberty is that it shows estrangement of the individual where the state could quash a single person as it wishes. The danger of modern liberty is the deep engrossing in one’s pleasures deviates from certain accountabilities.

Reflection on Catherine Mackinnon’s Argument for No Protection for Hate Speech

Catherine believes that hate speech should not be legalized since freedom of speech does reflect equality, but hate speech only is for personal interests. It was said in “Only Words” that she was completely in support of making pornography illegal (Baker, 1993). Her justification for equality stayed with freedom of speech; however, she thought the law of freedom of speech and equality caused disagreement within the state.

Hate speech does not hinder freedom of expression; it should still be prevented as it might revert a person’s mind into negativity. It could be about discrimination, full of hate words, or unacceptable foul words about a person, sect, religion, gender, nationality, etc., which could trigger hostility and violence (United Nations, n.d.). It is strictly prohibited under the United Nations’ definition of freedom of expression and, thus, widely intolerable in international relations (United Nations, n.d.).

Article 1 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen

The article illustrates that men are born free and with rights and equality. However, social categorizations could be based on public utility or the general good (Canada, Department of Justice, 2015). Public utilities provide certain benefits to a selective segment within the population that make them different from the rest of the common public, causing subtle segregation or social categorization, which mainly leads to social distinction. A commonly held belief is that if this distinction is eliminated, a maximized level of common good could be observed with optimal and justified use of power and resources (Rahman, 2018, p. 1630).

Fourth Amendment in the Bill and Unreasonable Searches without Warrants

The Amendment in the Bill states that people have the right to be secure in their homes or places where they live or are comfortable, and unreasonable searches are not allowed without a warrant (Friedman & Kerr, n.d.). The right is granted for the protection of people, especially those who are innocent, and the police, without verifying their details, enter their houses, causing stress and trouble for their peace. There could be a problem for any kids in the family; hence, the amendment was made to seize such searches without legal authorization.

Karl Marx on ‘Right to Private Property

Marx claimed that the right to private property could be characterized by human self-alienation. It is said that the current institutions are not working for human restoration or, holistically, human freedom (Hidalgo, 2013, p. 144). The humanistic approach of the laborer seems to diminish as the wealth of earlier developments is observed to be abolished in the race of making wealth by everyone individually. The same applies to contemporary institutions, which are under the violation terms of human consciousness, free will, and hence, private property.

References

Annas, J. (1981). An introduction to Plato’s Republic. Oxford University Press.

Baker, C.E. (1993). Of course, more than words. The University of Chicago Law Review, 61, 1181-1211. https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4847&context=uclrev