Political Life Ethics, Essay Example

Aristotle assumed that politics should be rather practical as compared to the theoretical study done in the academics. In his several treaties that he wrote, he thought that individual virtue is manifested by his proper functioning. This ethics were basically concerned about a person in individual, however in his political work, he majored on the city, terming it as a “natural environment”. In the hierarchy he considered the city to be the proceeding aspect of the family and the individual in that order. Through his popular slogan, “man is a social and political being”, Aristotle saw politics as an “animal” rather than a “machine”; thus a compromise of numerous factors which coexist together. To him state- the contemporary understanding of politics was unfamiliar to him. The city is created through a political “affiliation” in order for its occupants to realize good life and not merely for economic and justice sustainability. This concept is still being held dearly today by the contemporary communitarians who still invoke the collapse of the historical social organizations. They always seek to promote the long held traditions manners and virtues.

He drew the dissimilarity between the political ethics and virtues and their political relevance; consequently he explained that every individual must be clear of the other. From this he came up with personal virtue and civic virtue. It is not always for a good and patriotic citizen to possess the virtues exhibited by good man. Contrary to the believed of Plato, his teacher, Aristotle viewed that ethics must be taken in a rather practical approach and thus average to every members of the community. This calls force every individual to be conscious of his righteousness and rationality.

Aristotle’s political life ethical teaching clearly separates itself from the contemporary idea of political community as a grouping of persons brought together by the desire to safeguard their interests, based on agreements that focus on securing their personal rights. According to him, each community should uphold its integrity commensurate with its name, and should also in term understand with allusion the most basic principle purpose. One of the key elements of politics is ethics, but the advancement of virtues and intellectual outstanding should be the foundation of true political community. Aristotelian point of view shows that the epitome of political virtue is manifested by intellectual attributes of wisdom and prudence, thus allowing every member of the community to have equal representations and opportunities.

Aristotle believed that in addressing controversial issues such as politics and ethics, it is advisable to begin with broad concepts that are unanimously agreed upon by the people of good up- bringing and then use this as the basis to institute further in-depth understanding.  While showing the interactions between politics and ethics, Aristotle shows that politics depicts ethics on a wider scale. He supports the justice of the community and hence the state rather than the individual, since the state is equally bigger and more apparent. Ethics should be the onset of the noble pursuit of politics. In his normative idea, Aristotle concentrates on the issue of community and friend ship (Thompson 45). Generally it is believed that friend ship is willingness interaction based on mutual pleasure through personal tastes and preferences, but Aristotle believed that friendship is not purely based on fun and enjoyment rather is based on reciprocal dependence in fostering the intellectual and moral brilliance. True community setting is based on this form of brotherhood with members bound together by genuine friendship forming a lasting social wholesomeness (Thompson 89).

Contrary to Aristotle, Machiavelli concentrated more on issuing monarchical advice to the rulers. He recommended aspects that deliberated on minimizing if not eliminating the collective political activism. He favored the use of violence by the monarch in order for it to preserve power and authority. On top of this the monarch should in term respect the right to private wealth ownership and preserve the values and traditions of its subjects thus fostering material prosperity. He believed that the political life of a state or community cannot be ruled over through one set of religious, cultural and moral supremacy. Acts of violence perpetrated by the monarch could be excusable, regardless of whether they are indefensible in the public life domain. Through his Price concepts, Machiavelli believed in somewhat dictatorship where every ruler should be in a position to understand what is to be done and also be in a position to affect it. However he concurred with Aristotle on the fact that genuine civilization cannot be realized without virtue and that the already realized developments could just crumble if the leaders fail to heed the rule of the land.

Many scholars tend to view his “Machiavelli’s political life and ethics”, as simple, and short commission. This makes the philosopher from Florentine to appear a rather quintessential supporter of an immoral approach to politics authorizing deceit and violence supported by his famous slogan of “the end justifies the means”. This character trait can subject to intense philosophical and political criticism as it founded his cynical opposition to ethical customs.

Machiavelli is believed to have shaped contemporary politics and the current rule of law. His views and aspects about how governments should be ideally run are still applicable in the current leadership administrations. Although generally referred as a political realist, some of Machiavelli teachings backed for some extreme and adverse course of action.  Machiavelli insists that individual priorities should be geared towards national community rather than moral obligations. He coined the “Borgia myth” which aimed at outlining the ideal character traits of a leader in light to his vital philosophical life aspects. At the core of these attributes is the opportunity of the leader to act on the guidelines of the universal morality so as to achieve increased personal and the entire community satisfaction. He also believed on the culture of contravening the already set moral standards to improve the human wellbeing. For a population that enjoys significant freedom and liberty, it is difficult to exercise authority over them, thus he suggested three paths that a leader can assume; he may choose to destroy them, cohabitate with them or just allow them to enjoy the benefits of the status quo. In a situation where a leader assumes power through non violent means, he should rather different leadership code depending on whether he gained power through populace vote where in such a case he should offer dignity and mercy leadership to them. He supports a reorganization of morality to separate it from the principal liberal and rationalist beliefs of the ethical meanings. He believed that there is no standard measure of ethic in political life. He tried to show that the ubiquity for political power does not necessarily cause the abandonment of the moral ethics. He termed the political life “ethics” as ethics to act evil”. The community and state in general has the obligation of stating the course of action to be taken so as to cause little harm on the moral ethics. In every situation there must be an element of evil and it’s up to them to choose the options that will lead to the least evil. This gives moral and ethical courage in light to political ethics desperation. Through moral judgment and courage and political wisdom individuals and community in general can reconcile to their political scenery and moral future. This reconciliation is best attained through a “tragic sensibility” in light to human wisdom. Therefore, there a political life morality and ethics can not exist devoid of proper considered repercussions of this moral action. Machiavelli realistic approach therefore takes into account the effects of alternative political interrelations thus the overall virtue of political life. Ethics generally reviews the actions through the latter’s conformity to the already set moral law; this means in abstract the political influences the verdict of the political ethics. Machiavelli elaborated the need for political rulers to take desperate action regardless of the virtues as long as it is aimed at clinching and maintaining the political power (Sheldon 224).

Right from the definition of the term political scientist, it is possible to draw the philosophical distinction between the political leadership systems of the two philosophers. This can be attributed to their geographical and historical origin; Machiavelli hailed from the medieval Europe and Aristotle came towards the conclusion of the Golden age of Greece. Despite these long periods, their teachings are still relevant to the contemporary world politics. Machiavelli concentrated on how to attain and maintain power while Aristotle focused on the fundamental objectives of politics in achieving “good life” for the community at large. Basing from their political ethics stand, it is evident that Aristotle was a political realist philosopher using a reasoned approach; Machiavelli assumed a rather extreme political artist pragmatism stand making use of empirical approach to his teachings (Sheldon 124).

I believe that Machiavelli offers a proper guide for behaviors through a simple solution to the rulers. These rulers need to adopt extreme actions in order to safeguard their power. However one must consider honor and glory past the political sphere. This will involve the choosing the “less bad” of every situation since in reality there is not good as such. However humanity must be willing to face the consequences of his teaching especially on the assumption that politics is everything. Those who subscribe should be ready to defend all the deeds and the ensuing consequences as long as they are meant to defend the incumbent administrations in its quest to retain power. Through his education, I believe Machiavelli is far from showing the cold peddler and cynical elaboration to the tyrannical rulers; this can well detailed by his republican assurance. Although he does not advocate for respect of the rule of law like Aristotle, Machiavelli he position himself in similar stand in light to the relationship between politics and morality; however the latter supports for peaceful rather than military acquisitions. Aristotle believed that peace brings distinction between what is lawful, upright and moral.

Work Cited

Thompson, Norma. Installing Ethics. New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 1998.

Sheldon, Wolin S. Politics and vision: continuity and innovation in Western political thought. New Jersey, NJ:  Princeton University Press, 2000.