Leland is depicted as a victim of Kane’s insincerity, his pure morality not being able to cope with the corrupt world. Additionally, Bernstein’s complicity with Kane’s corruption is sympathetically portrayed as loyalty, while the character’s view of Kane is easily the most forgiving and even loving. Firstly, Welles makes a clear point out of representing Kane’s character through solely subjective viewpoints, sympathetically suggesting to the audience that one must not be judged solely on his actions. The prodigious director espouses an early postmodernist perspective, questioning society’s absolute faith in facts. This idea has naturally led to the empowerment of media, as their voice is believed without question.
This is how Parrillo specifies it: Some philosophers argue that we are not so much rational creatures as we are rationalizing creatures. We require reassurance that the things we do and the lives we live are proper, that good reasons for our actions exist. If we can convince ourselves that another group is inferior, immoral, or dangerous, we may feel justified in discriminating against its members, enslaving them, or even killing them. (Parrillo 507) Parrillo shows us that self justification is something everyone is good at and when one is capable of justifying their actions they can become very dangerous. By justifying their acts of prejudice they can argue that their actions are for the greater good and that what they are doing is right.
Efficiency took the place of good. The good in politics is those actions which are efficient to bring about a goal. By discrediting the idea of good, evil was left as an organising principle for politics. Machiavelli believed that for an efficient government to be formed the ruler, in this case The Prince, should have two systems, a private spiritual system and a political system, both of which have different assumptions about morality and immorality and do not mix together to benefit political society. Machiavelli was more an antireligious reformer than a philosopher, as he tried to change the maxims that govern people’s lives.
This reflects our true nature and commonality and subscribes to the point that for humanity to be Just and happy, it has an interest in satisfying these instincts. Thrasymachus theory of justice is oblivious to these facts in my opinion, and this makes it inefficient and unsustainable. Secondly, due to the high level of competition present, such a state would constantly be at risk of collapse. As the weaker
Confucianism doesn’t believe in punishments, instead it they believed that the sense of shame will turn any man over to the good side, people are naturally good, and that leaders should lead by example. Well on the other hand Legalism is the exact opposite, believing that only through strict punishments and laws that people can be in order, people are naturally bad, and a ruler should be firm and use punishments and rewards to govern the people. Confucius would evaluate the nature of zero tolerance policies to be bad/disagree/legalist as it believes that humans must be controlled by strict laws and punishments and that people are naturally bad. But Han Fei would evaluate it as good as the strict laws and punishments, are much like to his form of Legalism, but he might want to add rewards into the policy. Confucius would disagree with Zero Tolerance policies as he dislikes punishments, believe that people are naturally good, leaders should lead by example, and instead of actual punishment, make them feel ashamed.
John Locke versus Niccolo Machiavelli Despite their contradictions on “sovereignty”, John Locke and Niccolo Machiavelli (two philosophers of the Renaissance era) shared one conspicuous concern, and that is their concern for the betterment of society. It is plain to see that both philosophers did have common ways of thinking regarding what a ruler should and should not do. It is ‘how’ a ruler should behave in order to win sovereignty of his state that led to a divergence in their opinions. I certainly am inspired with the Lockean way of thinking, but I am not sure how realistic such a way of thinking is when applied to our modern times. The ‘Lockean Liberalism’ is a paradox only in theory.
He firmly thought that God is a righteous one who at the end of time will deal with those who rejected him. Augustine`s argument that evil is a `deprivation of good` rather than a positive substance created by God has been supported by some modern thinkers. Brian Davies describes evil as `a gap between what there is and what there ought to be`. Augustine`s argument that evil has resulted from the abuse of human free will has also been supported by modern thinkers. It seems clear that humans choosing to act in the wrong ways cause much of the evil and suffering in the world.
Human Nature Thomas Hobbs and John Locke both developed well known theories on human nature and political philosophy. When we refer to these philosophers today Locke is seen as the optimist while Hobbes the pessimistic. Their theories of human nature translated into their views on how a society should be run. Despite their vast differences in views on human nature, they both agree that it is best for a society to have some form of social contract and a government enacted by the people. Hobbes pessimistic view on human nature was most likely a result of how he took in his surroundings.
It is very important to analyse different areas of each of these texts to find the differences in each. It is for this reason that this paper sought to Compare and contrast Plato and Aristotle’s views on both the best kind of human life, and the best kind of regime or political rule. Plato mainly focuses on the perfect society. In his book, he illustrates a design to create a utopian society out of dislike for the tension generated by the political life. In this illustration, he sketched a plan of how to address the present issues.
Renaissance thinker’s views would have contrasted with Orthodox Elizabethan views. Renaissance thinkers would feel empathy towards Faustus because he has typical Renaissance features. Overall, in the first scene of Dr. Faustus audiences would have had contrasted views on him. Orthodox Elizabethans would agree that Faustus is a sinful character – so no sympathy would be felt for him, whereas, Renaissance thinker’s would admire Faustus’ risk taking by challenging the established order. Both characters are Wittenberg