This paper examines how major Western political philosophers defined a "good regime," tracing ideas from ancient Greece through the Enlightenment and into the founding of the United States. Drawing on Aristotle's virtue ethics, Plato's concept of arete, Machiavelli's pragmatic ends-justify-the-means reasoning, Hobbes's absolutism and social contract theory, Locke's liberalism and individual rights, and Nietzsche's critique of free will and morality, the paper identifies common threads and contrasts among these thinkers. It then connects these philosophical frameworks to the Declaration of Independence and The Federalist Papers, arguing that the American founders synthesized multiple traditions to construct their vision of legitimate government.
Early philosophers like Aristotle and Plato each characterized their versions of ideal government and governance in works such as the Nicomachean Ethics and Meno. Their ideals were formed through close critical examination of what is right and what it means to be a just leader or politician. What exactly makes a good regime, according to these thinkers, depends on the ideals that the regime or its leaders would strive for. Many of these early concepts were later incorporated into real political systems, including the founding of the United States.
Aristotle's Ethics—a collection of writings including the Nicomachean Ethics, the Eudemian Ethics, and the Magna Moralia—is primarily concerned with the subject of virtue (Aristotle, 1999). For him, a person's or leader's ethical knowledge is never perfect. No man may have precise knowledge, just as no person can rule precisely and without error (Aristotle, 1999). Aristotle believed that ethical knowledge involved both general and experiential understanding. He also recognized that the discipline of ethics was fundamentally practical: even when theory is used to justify a decision, it is practical knowledge that sets a good person or good leader apart from others (Aristotle, 1999). It is certainly possible to examine ethics from a theoretical standpoint, but when actual decisions must be made, practical wisdom plays the largest role.
Aristotle regarded certain actions and emotions as morally wrong, and argued that any leader who allowed themselves to be ruled by hate, envy, murderous impulse, or greed would ultimately lead their constituents down the wrong path (Aristotle, 1999). For him, human experience fell somewhere on a scale between two poles he called "deficiency" and "excess." He believed in moderation, and that all things proceeding from human action fell between these two extremes. To argue that a regime is good, according to Aristotle, it would have to operate in constant pursuit of the highest good—that is, the good attained with a worthy goal in mind. He argued that the highest good has three characteristics: it is desirable for its own sake, all other goods are desirable for its sake, and it is not desirable for the sake of some further good. This was the litmus test Aristotle used to distinguish the highest good from a lesser good, and to determine whether a regime was truly virtuous.
Plato's identification of a good regime comes from a different perspective, yet shares certain similarities with Aristotle's. He believed in a philosopher-king model of governance, and also held, as did Aristotle, that governance should be guided by virtue (Plato, 2005). Plato's concept of excellence—which he called arete—formed the backbone of his argument about what makes something genuinely "good" (Plato, 2005). According to Plato, virtue differs from person to person, and his vision of a good regime would incorporate this idea. As he proposes in Meno, Plato believed that true virtue is the desire for good things combined with the ability to bring them about (Plato, 2005). For Plato, virtue is neither naturally acquired nor learned; it is something that certain people possess and others do not. A good regime, in his view, is one that does good for its own citizens—not by attacking or destroying other regimes, but through understanding what virtue is and applying virtuous reasoning to all decisions, great and small.
Machiavelli's The Prince (2009) offers a striking account of what the philosopher considered the greatest good. He believed that in order to do good—or for a regime to be good—it must do everything possible to benefit itself, by any means necessary. His statement that "a prince … cannot observe all of those virtues for which men are reputed good, because it is often necessary to act against mercy, against faith, against humanity, against frankness, against religion, in order to preserve the state" (Machiavelli, 2009) accurately reflects his political philosophy. Machiavelli believed the ends justify the means, and that if the final outcome was "good," a regime could pursue it by whatever methods it saw fit. He favored pragmatism over theoretical or virtuous action. Though his philosophy can seem brutal, it reflects the "kill or be killed" attitudes that surfaced in fourteenth- and fifteenth-century Italy amid the power struggles and family feuds that defined that era. Machiavelli was a product of his time, and his writings show it. He believed that virtue was the capacity to create and maintain order and stability, and that a good regime would do whatever was necessary to preserve that stability—regardless of the effects on other nation-states.
Hobbes's Leviathan (1994) offers a historically influential perspective on political philosophy. He believed in a "social contract" that governed human interaction. Hobbes argued that in a "state of nature," human beings revert to their passions and instincts; organized society is therefore necessary to keep interaction civil and productive (Hobbes, 2004). For Hobbes, a good regime would place social law and order at the center of political action. By keeping interactions consistent with the social contract, regimes could work together in ways that maximized social good. Hobbes is regarded as an absolutist, and his political philosophy reflects this worldview. According to him, absolute authority—to which all members of society must cede their individual rights in exchange for protection from external threats—defines what is absolutely right and absolutely wrong (Hobbes, 1994). A good regime as Hobbes conceived it would be one in which citizens are subjects of an authoritarian state that protects them and their interests.
"Locke's individual rights and Nietzsche's moral skepticism"
"Founding documents synthesize Enlightenment political philosophy"
Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm. Twilight of the Idols, Or, How to Philosophize with a Hammer. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing, 1997.
Hamilton, Alexander; Madison, James; Jay, John; ed. Kesler, Charles R. The Federalist Papers. New York, NY: New American Liberty, 2003.
Pilon, Roger, ed. The Declaration of Independence. Washington, D.C.: The Cato Institute, 2000.
You’re 53% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.