All opinions were very different; Aristotle's being more of an open minded approach towards demorcracy (not completely dismissing the idea of it), Pericles' being in total agreement with it, and Plato being sarcastic and exceptionally opposed. In Pericles' "Funeral Oration", he speaks strongly in favor of a democratic nation and talks bout how and why that's important. He specifically mentions that personal freedoms are allowed because of their democratic way of life, but also conveys the point that while the people were free to live for themselves, they chose to live for one another as a whole as well, and all hoped to better the city as a positively functioning society. Throughout the address he praises Athenians, their military, and explains to the people how their system of government was to responsible for their success and that it set them apart from other nations. His belief in Democracy was understandable and is still held in a similar way today by many people.
He believed he was on the position to serve his country and his people without any expectation. Aristides handled any contradictions against him peacefully, and he believed in his duty as a citizen, of autocratic politicization, he would give his service to Greek at all times freely and without reward of any compensation or even popularity (112). In general the two leaders, Themistocles and Aristides, had contributed their role to Greek. Based on Plutarch’s written, Aristides became a sturdy champion of justice who was a little swayed by personal sympathy. On the other hand, Themistocles became champion of people; he was not swayed by any desire to take revenge on his countrymen, nor was he elated by the great power position which he would enjoy in the war
“Men of Athens, I am grateful and I am your friend, but I will obey the god rather than you, and as long as I draw breath, I shall not cease to practice philosophy (Apology, 29d).” He made an emphatic hierarchical distinction between these two laws in which he argued that divine law should dictate one’s moral compass and must take precedence over the laws mandated by men. In essence, a person would remain virtuous simply by following divine laws above all and by constantly examining a life through knowledge,
In the beginning of Book I, Socrates convinces Cephelus and Polemarchus that justice is not only doing good to friends and wrong to enemies nor is it only useful in certain aspects of life. Rather, justice is something that should be in every aspect of your life. But when Thracymachus questions this theory by saying justice only benefits some, Socrates (and Plato) is forced to clarify. He goes on to explain why justice is beneficial to every type of person. He explains that the strong can only be powerful when they make just choices, otherwise they will be overthrown by a united majority.
In the novel, Anthem, by Ayn Rand, society is supposed to be a perfect place where everyone lives by a set of rules which are not to be broken, and everyone has accepted the concept of “we” rather than “I”. Everyone has their job chosen for them and everyone is equal. In this novel, the two main characters, Equality 7-2521 and the Golden One fall in love with one another and develop feelings for each other. The love that these two share violates the fundamental beliefs that their society believes in by them developing feelings, ideas, and self sufficiency which is what their society is against. The first reason I feel that their love violates their society’s beliefs is because in this society, everyone has a tight schedule of what to do and when to do it.
ompers “Although obviously a man of great personal pride and ambition, he had dedicated himself and all his abilities to service for his fellow workers. He wanted them to have what he valued most – individual liberty.” FLORENCE CALVERT THORNE (Forward, Samuel Gompers: American Statesman) “Since freedom was the goal, voluntarism was the principle he advocated. Democracy to him meant responsible individuals living in a responsible society. Individual rights were the practical results of that way of life. As president of the American Federation of Labor, Gompers could not compel any person or union to act contrary to his or their judgement.
The Giver is a utopian society, a perfect world as envisioned by its creators. It has eliminated fear, pain, hunger, illness, conflict, and hatred—all things that most people would like to eliminate in their own society. But in order to maintain the peace and order of their society, the citizens of the community in The Giver have to submit to strict rules governing their behavior, their relationships, and even their language. For example Jonas says “He knew that there was no quick comfort for emotions like those. They were deeper and they did not need to be told.
Egoism is the normative ethical position that moral agents ought to do what is in their own self-interest while social contract theory is the view that persons’ moral and/or political obligations are dependent upon a contract or agreement among them to form the society in which they live. (Philosophy Encyclopedia, 2004). All men acted out of egoism since they gave more importance on their personal mission of reaching the top of the mountains. They acted out of their self-interest and did not do what must necessary to help save the man. Instead, they all contributed a few things to help him and they did this out of social contract and felt that they are obligated to help the man out because of their conscience.
What is more amazing is that Laozi and Plato had almost the same idea about the ideal society. In Laozi's theory, the right way to rule a country is to strengthen people's bodies so that they could do more work and simplify their minds so that they would content with their positions. In his mind the ideal citizens of a society is the humblest, the most unwise and ignorant ones, while the most intelligent ones should see to that. He believed if ordinary people always stay ignorant, there would be no riot and the rulers need not do anything to keep their authority. The whole world would be a better place.
Platos Ideal Society essay In the Republic Plato talks about what he believes would be the ideal society, in other words what he thinks would be the perfect society which would bring peace to the whole world. He explains that in his ideal society people will all live a harmonious life and not have to fear violence or material possessions. It is important to realize that people have been trying to create the perfect society for years and all have failed trying to. I do not believe that it is possible to have this ideal society that Plato envisioned. I feel that no matter what happens there will be violence and their will be betrayers.