Philosophy

Platos Theory of Ethics
    Platos theory of ethics is similar to other ancient philosophers in that he focuses on virtue based thought and conduct in support of human well being.  In describing his theory, Plato undermines the mainstream ways in which people behave towards one another as he makes known his own conception of how people should act.  Plato considers happiness to be a state of perfection through the solving of problems and difficulties.  In several regards, Platos idea of ethics is somewhat severe and self deprecating, as he believes that the soul is above the body and that the community is above the individual, lending to a hierarchical model of human interaction (Frede, 2009).  Although much of the philosophy of Plato is grounded in the human realm, in his later writings, he does branch into the idea of a transcendental good.  In this metaphysical philosophy, the true nature of all things, the form of the universal good, is the basis for moral values.  These moral values give rise to Platos belief that the most suitable political order can be maintained only by leaders with a thorough and accurate scientific training.

Aristotles Theory of Ethics
    Like other ancient philosophers, Aristotles theory of ethics is based in the idea of virtuous thought and conduct in support of human well being.  Aristotle believes that ethical virtues of the individual, such as justice, courage, and temperance, are necessary rational, emotional, and social skills (Kraut, 2007).  However, unlike Plato, Aristotle rejects the idea that training in science and metaphysics is absolutely necessary for a full understanding of what is good.  The basis of well being and good living, from Aristotles perspective, is fully appreciating the ways in which goods such as friendship, honor, and pleasure work together as part of a holistic system.  Based on a moral upbringing, the individual is then able to make clear judgments about the correct courses of action to take.  Mental, behavioral, and social skills are learned in a variety of ways so that the individual is able to make deliberate choices towards living a fully good and ethical life.

Elia Kazan
    Elia Kazan was one of the most significant American film directors of the 1950s and 60s and was also a member of the American Communist Party during the 1930s.  In the early 1950s, the US House of Representatives had a focused committee which was rooted in the desire to eliminate Communists from prominent positions in all industries.  Kazan made the decision to testify against other filmmakers, because people who had not cooperated with the House were being blacklisted from the film industry.  By offering the names of eight friends in the film industry, other writers and directors who had also been members of the American Communist Party, Kazan was able to save himself from political backlash.  Many people are torn about the ethical decision made by Kazan, as he contributed to the ruin of the careers of eight other people yet was strongly pressured to cooperate with the US authorities who suspected Communist infiltration.  Today, Kazan has yet to be honored for his fine work in the film industry.

Platos Evaluation of Kazan
    In considering the ethical perspective of Plato in regard to the case of Kazan, it is probable that Plato would not be supportive of the actions taken.  Plato made it clear that he believed in a hierarchical structure of the community over the individual, so believing in the ideology of Communism was probably not a remote notion for Plato.  Hierarchy in the sense that government has a more powerful and intelligent positioning over individuals was a part of Platos philosophy, therefore the actions taken by a supremely individualistic government would have been counter to his beliefs.  The fact that Kazan participated with the individualistic US government would have demonstrated to Plato that Kazan undermined the need for a certain amount of community and government control over individuals.  Although it is probable that Plato would have supported Kazan in his early years as a member of the Communist party, it is unlikely that he would have supported Kazans turn towards supporting the individualistic government.  Perhaps if Kazan had been informing on friends who had been a part of the Republican or Libertarian party, then Plato would have been more sympathetic.   

Aristotles Evaluation of Kazan
    In considering the ethical perspective of Aristotle in regard to the case of Kazan, it is probable that Aristotle would not be supportive of the actions taken.  Aristotle was a proponent of the individual making virtuous decisions based on the practice of moral behaviors.  When Kazan was placed under pressure by the authorities, it is probable that Aristotle would have been encouraging of Kazan doing what he thought was right in regard to which, if any, information was shared with the investigating committee.  However, the information shared by Kazan should have only been personal in nature and not casting blame on other people.  By deriding his friends, Kazan would have shown Aristotle that he was not brave enough to face the decision of the committee based on revealing solely his own personal actions.  Pointing the guilty finger at his friends would have seemed to Aristotle as if Kazan was not able to face his own personal decisions alone.  Aristotle believed that the individual himself was responsible for his own happiness and success, resulting from personal choices made and actions taken.  In dragging down his friends, Aristotle would have been offended by Kazans inability to face the outcomes of his own choices.

Interpretation of Platos Theory and Evaluation
    It is safe to say that I do agree with Platos theory of ethics to a certain extent, although not fully.  While I do believe that the community has a certain relationship with the individual and that the soul has a certain relationship with the body, I do not believe that these relationships are hierarchical, but rather horizontal.  The community or government body has a certain relationship with the individual, but this does not mean that the community or government is over the individual.  The community or government is responsible for serving the needs of the individual, and vice versa.  There is a cooperative and harmonious effort involved in this dynamic.  Where Plato would be willing for the community and government to assume an authoritative tone over individuals, I would not be willing for the government to completely take over, such as is displayed in Communism.  I believe that there has to be a certain balance between the needs of the community and the needs of the individual, so that both entities are served as best as possible in relation to one another.  While I would agree that Kazan had a certain responsibility to his government and community, I would not agree that he should have been involved in the extremist Communist party.

Interpretation of Aristotles Theory and Evaluation
    Aristotles theory of the well being of the individual resulting from the practice of virtuous thought and moral behavior is very much aligned with my own personal philosophy.  I truly believe that the actions an individual takes are able to have repercussions in the lives of other people, yet the individual remains solely responsible for the choices one makes.  It is not necessary for a person to be a government official or a highly educated scientist to know what is right from what is wrong.  I agree with Aristotle that correct moral formation which leads to good decision making is a skill which can be picked up by any person in any family.  The individual is naturally inclined to be kind, to serve the needs of oneself and others in a spirit of good will, yet is it possible for the individual to make mistakes which can negatively affect one and others.  While every person is responsible for ones own benevolent actions, every person is also responsible for ones own malevolent actions.  I would agree with Aristotle that Kazan did not fully honor the individuality and personal responsibility of his friends by informing on them to the authorities.

This paper explores and criticizes the moral relativism vs. moral absolutism debate with an emphasis on some real world cases. This paper does not explicitly state that one theory is right and the other is absolutely wrong, it advocates rational thinking above all and viewing the world and social interactions in the form of exchange of rights and obligations. Moral Relativism

It is a widely held fallacy that moral relativity teaches us that there are no morals, man is free to do what he pleases, and nobody is allowed to judge his decisions to do so. It is also a widely held fallacy that moral absolutism says that the rules are rigid and one must adhere to a strict ethical code no matter what the circumstances. When we view human interactions and behavior in complex environment of the world, we must not restrict ourselves to singular ideologies, we must not put curtain over half of the window and view the world in our own shade.

What these two ideologies represent is two different academic philosophical theories about the world, effectively, these theories tend to negate each other with an emphasis on proving the other wrong a priest on one side and a professor on the other. The actual real world is so much more complex that each situation calls for a unique judgment, a different perspective and does not fit in a predefined pattern. What philosophers attempt is pre-designing a set pattern where all human behavior can be plugged in and a moral value would be written on the output screen in form of a number 45100 for helping an attractive girl cross the street.

Both of these ideologies are correct in their own bubbles. Moral absolutism rightly believes that there is a moral code which the whole humanity should believe in, do not kill, no not cheat, do not lie etc (Collins, 1998). These are the rules and even if whole societies or cultures dont follow them, the rules remain the rules. 2  2 is 4 that is all we know and all we need to know. On the other hand, moral relativism is not wrong in saying that one should lie to a person who is about to kill ones friend, like John Hamerlinck says in his article (Hamerlinck, 1996). So, if both these ideologies are correct, what should we do

Before going further into this discussion I would like to make an appeal to humanity in general The time has come to finally decide if man is a rational animal or not, so let us do that first. If man is a rational animal, then he has the power to make rational decisions by definition and does not need set patterns to operate. In every unique and different situation, man can make rational decisions. Each moral decision can be weighed against a synthesis of these two theories and if the decision maker is sincere, he will make the ethical decision.

An easier way to do this is to consider all human interactions as an exchange of rights and obligations. It is the right of little Jackies class fellows to sit un-harassed inside the class and learn from their teacher, furthermore, it is little Jackies obligation to follow the norms of the class to become the part of the class and gain friendliness and respect of the class fellows. These are the terms on which these people interact and if little Jackie does not fulfill her obligation of being a nice girl, the class fellows are not bound to return the same, no matter what moral absolutism or moral relativism says.

Similarly, every person has a right to live freely and I cannot take that right from him, also, it is my right to live freely and not be harmed. However, if I decide to kill that man and ask from his friend about his whereabouts, he has the right to not only lie to me, but try to stop me, because I did not fulfill my social obligation, I must give up a few of my rights. We can even explain capital punishment by this method.

However, if someone wants to cut down the rainforest just to see what it feels like a moral relativist can stop him by saying, You should be sent to a mental institution because relativist or absolutist, no theory condones harming a large number of people, environment and society permanently just for the (possible) pleasure and curiosity of one deranged sociopath. We must look at the circumstances in which the decision is being made and judge from all perspectives. Not all things are right, but not all things are wrong either.

The author has done a commendable job trying to explain the origin of the Feminist movements in the United States coined within the political context. There is a lot of agreement on many issues as the author has tried to provide for a chronology of the events that were taking place in the US from the mid 20th century until the formation of feminists organizations that emerged to champion for the womens rights.

The emergence of the US feminist philosophy
The activities of Rosa Parks in 1955 though aimed at resisting racism can be argued out from the feminist point of view. Women held a very low position in the society as depicted in the infamous 1955 Adlai Stevenson address to Smith college graduates urging them not to define themselves as professionals but rather politically participate as mothers and wives. Coupled with the political activities of the time, the women who had realized the level of injustices that they were exposed to went on to form organizations to champion for their rights and were also engaged in protests fighting for equality. It is actually right to argue that the social and political events that were experienced in the United States formed the basis upon which feminist movements would emerge (Tuana, 2004).

Radical Feminism
Radical feminist philosophy views the males as privileged in the society at the expense of women based on patriarchy. The proponents are opposed to the existing social and political arrangement since they view them as tied to patriarchy. Radical feminism has been criticized for focusing on the societal arrangement which is patriarchy instead of addressing specific issues affecting the unequal relationship between the men and women. This perspective looks at patriarchy as the source of all evils bedeviling the women which is not the case (Lewis, 2010).

Feminism and War
    The war in Iraq has led to the increasing number of death among the military. It is not surprising that many of the military death are reportedly males when compared to the female cases. To feminists, this is a reflection of the imbalance in the military in which case more males are employed as compared to women. There could be another perspective to the issue for instance women are sidelined from taking part in combative action as this is thought to be a male domain. Going by the first argument, more males are encouraged to take military as a career option whereas the females are encouraged to influence the males to join the military. This is well depicted by Cynthia Enloe who established that military recruiters have engaged the advertising agencies services with the aim of encouraging young men to take military careers. Influencers are mothers and girlfriends and there are general militarized ideas about the heroic veteran, the sacrificing mother, and the loyal girlfriend (Mehr, 2009).

    To radical feminists, the military is a reflection of the patriarchic social dominance of the male gender (Lewis, 2010). To the equity feminists, the military composition in terms of gender is skewed in favor of the males. It is therefore logical to point out that military death in war countries like Iraq will always be skewed in favor of the domineering gender. Women military officials were not officially recognized as history depicts. During the Vietnam wars, those who served in the military action were referred to as volunteers whether they participated in the civilian capacity or military (Illyria.com, 2009).

It can therefore be argued by feminists that imbalances in the military have continued despite the efforts seeking equality of both genders in all spheres of life. Feminism movements have no time to rest and take count of their achievements as there is a lot remaining and waiting to be done.

There has long been a tension between traditionalist and realist approaches to defining and interpreting the law indeed, as stated by Altman, There certainly are drawbacks to the rule of law, and they concern the relationship of the rule of law to substantive justice. (2001, p.18) Although no legal model is perfect, and although advocates of traditionalism, legal realism and hybrid approaches all raise certain persuasive points, a review of all of the arguments and the implications of different approaches demonstrates that the best legal paradigm is legal realism as advocated by Bentham. First, legal realism recognizes and accounts for the fact that all judges are fallible human beings.  The traditionalist assumption that judges are able to apply objective rules to a given set of facts dispassionately, thereby arriving at decisions that are both determinate and apolitical, is simply contrary to human nature. An additional feature of legal realism that is superior to traditionalism is its ability to account for social concerns and social welfare in ways that are simply beyond the scope of traditionalist philosophies.  If the law is meant to serve society, and to serve the greatest number of citizens as Bentham advocated, then traditionalism is a flawed legal philosophy.  A third argument in favor of legal-realism is mostly of a socioeconomic nature more particularly, recognizing that laws are often created by and implemented by those with more economic resources than the common citizen, legal realism creates a more democratic type of judicial branch.  The rich and the powerful seem to more frequently avail themselves of the judicial branch than do individuals or businesses with less economic clout.  There is thus a great potential for the judicial process to be abused by the rich and the powerful if a traditionalist approach is followed.  Legal realism also allows judges to resolve legal disputes in a practical way without being unduly constrained by technicalities that may lead to gross injustices. It allows judges to view the competing interests at stake, to consider the implications of a decision on behalf of either competing party, and to employ judicial judgment in such a way as to maintain the legitimacy of the laws being invoked without allowing for unintended results or gross miscarriages of justice.  Finally, the research demonstrates quite clearly that a purely traditional approach is not reflected in judicial decision making and pretending that judges either can or do operate as purely objective analysts is rather disingenuous. In the final analysis, legal realism is superior to traditionalism for several reasons generally speaking, it is a superior legal philosophy because it accounts for human fallibility, it treats society as an important consideration, and it maintains the integrity of the judicial branch.

In a static and unchanging condition, Plato is right in saying that the troubles of society and people would end when philosophers are kings and kings are philosophers. When individuals and classes play their roles well, this enables the existence of a philosopher king who focuses on the pursuit of knowledge to govern with justice. This form of governance then prevents and addresses social problems. However, in the physical and changing reality, his statement cannot stand because it is impossible for the philosopher king he envisions to exist in the physical reality. Without his idea of philosopher king, the role played by the guardian cannot work to end social troubles. Moreover, in the physical reality, just governance can be achieved without the philosopher king. It was Platos description of reality as the context of the philosopher king that raised criticisms. Politics is an existential or practical discourse to be relevant to addressing actual social problems. The discussion then adopts a critical perspective by explaining how Plato is right in his description of the philosopher king as the solution to societys troubles given his non-physical reality and how he is wrong when considering the physical reality.

Plato propounded a duality of reality. One reality constitutes what is observable to the senses but to Plato this comprises an appearance and filled with mere opinions. The other reality is not physical but rather an eternal and unchanging state where knowledge resides. By adhering to the duality of reality, philosophy then rests within the realm of the eternal and unchanging and not in the physical world. (Internet Ancient History Sourcebook 2005) Plato describes his philosopher king in the non-physical reality.

    The context of Platos claim about the philosopher-king lies in his vision of an ideal and just society. According to Plato a just society is one where there is hierarchical balance that addresses common needs. The society emerges because individuals are not self-sufficient. (Internet Ancient History Sourcebook 2005) Society functions to fulfil the needs of its members and the individuals comprising society play their roles in contributing to the fulfilment of individual and collective needs.
Human needs fall under three hierarchical classes. The achievement of each class of needs serve the purpose of sustaining society. At the base of the hierarchy are the nourishing needs to include food, clothing and shelter (Internet Ancient History Sourcebook 2005). These comprise the basic human needs, which measure well-being. A state of poverty reflects very low well-being because even the most basic need for food is not met. In the middle of the hierarchy are the protection needs (Internet Ancient History Sourcebook 2005). Soldiers and law enforcement authorities address this need by ensuring an orderly and secure environment. At the top of the hierarchy of needs are the ordering needs (Internet Ancient History Sourcebook 2005) that involve leadership role and governance.

The individuals forming part of this utopian society are also organised into a hierarchy to serve these needs. Nourishing needs are addressed by the largest group of production workers (Internet Ancient History Sourcebook 2005) including farmers and other producers to address basic needs. In the modern sense the bulk of the labour pool constitute white and blue collar workers who create goods and services consumed by society. Protection needs are addressed by the group Plato calls auxiliary (Internet Ancient History Sourcebook 2005), which is comprised of military and law enforcement personnel comprised of the local or state police to national and international investigation and intelligence officers. This group is fewer in number because of the requirement of specialised training. Ordering needs are addressed by a small group of learned individuals, which Plato calls guardians (Internet Ancient History Sourcebook 2005). The guardians are the leaders of the country who are given titles such as prime minister or president. This group is comprised of a select few.

    To maintain balance and justice, the classes should focus on fulfilling their roles. This comes from the recognition and acceptance of the key roles played by the classes and the individual members of each class (Duncan and Steinberger 1990). The production workers accept their role in nourishing society. Farmers diligently work knowing they provide food to the rest of society and workers in clothing and shoe manufacturers also take pride in their contribution of keeping society warm and dry. Production workers also recognise that the auxiliary cannot help in production because they need to focus on securing society and ensuring order and that the guardians cannot also contribute to production because they need to continue honing knowledge for good governance.

The auxiliary class focuses on its role of protecting society from internal and external threats that could adversely affect social balance. Apart from a few members of the auxiliary who advance to become guardians, the rest of the protection forces keep to their role and continue to improve their capability through physical training and skills building. The selection of those who advance to become guardians is based on philosophical prowess. There is recognition among the auxiliary class that only those who are keen on philosophy would advance to become guardians. The auxiliary also recognise that they cannot contribute to production and have to depend on the producers for their needs in order for them to develop excellent skills necessary in maintaining peace, order and security.

The guardians are a select few who focus their effort and time to education, learning and knowledge building so they could govern society justly. They do not participate in production or protection. While they understand production, they do not participate in the activities because of the time and diligence required by a life of philosophy. Former auxiliary members cease to exercise the protective role to focus on studying. While they depend on the producers for their nourishment and other basic needs and on the protectors for their security, they contribute by using their knowledge to govern society in a manner that fosters balance and needs fulfilment to achieve a just society benefitting all its members.

    Societys troubles emerge when the classes neglect their roles or subsume the roles of the other classes. Some production workers could prefer the life of an auxiliary or guardian and abandon production to train and learn other roles. Some members of the auxiliary could prefer production or aim for guardianship. Guardians could abandon philosophy to pursue production by engaging in business or become remiss in their role as governors. These and similar situations that muddle inter-class relations and roles do no good to society. 

    The solution, according to Plato, rests on the guardians assuming the role of philosopher-kings. As rulers, the guardians exercise political power to influence order in society based on their philosophical ascendancy. As a small group who achieved high level of learning, wide knowledge, and experience about the affairs of the state, this group holds the highest qualifications to lead and influence social dynamics (Duncan and Steinberger 1990). By using their knowledge, the guardians can determine how best to achieve a balanced and just society. The guardians make decisions on strategic production shifts, security issues, and other affairs of society. No other group can provide the best governance for a just society other than the guardians. A rule by philosopher kings creates a just, functional and orderly society.

Philosophy merged with political power is then the key to a just society (Internet Ancient History Sourcebook 2005). Platos consideration of the rule of philosopher kings as the solution to human troubles is founded on the special characteristics of philosophers that set them apart from the other classes and makes them fit to become leaders who espouse justice. Just governance would address societys problems. The concept of good governance explains the important role of the type or form of leadership in achieving a good society. Good governance refers to the competence of leaders to wield power, make sound decision over a wide range of issues encompassing economic, socio-cultural and environmental dimensions (Smith 2000). The ability to exercise good governance depends on the extent of knowledge of leaders as well as skills in resource allocation, consensus building, development of key relations, and implementation. The exercise of political power has an encompassing impact on society. Lack of good governance can create social problems. At the same time, good governance can also prevent and address social problems. This concept could explain why Plato placed high premium on the role of the guardians.

Plato identifies a number of characteristics of philosophers, which if exercised in governance or developed by kings make them the best political leaders who can put an end to societys troubles.
One characteristic is education and a certain level of maturity. Education refers to formal learning to develop not only knowledge but also the mental discipline and passion for learning to foster continuous philosophical study. Maturity refers to the achievement of the capability to discern appropriate attitudes and beliefs as well as the ability to behave accordingly. Plato considered age as a determinant of maturity but only within the limits of prime age, after which guardians should retire. Education and maturity of philosopher kings make them just leaders because they are able to discern what is good for society even if the other classes may not be able to do so. Their wide range of knowledge enables them to know about production and auxiliary work and use their knowledge and experience to establish policies on production and protection in a manner that addresses the basic needs of society. (Philosophy Internet Resources 2005) In this way, needs achievement creates balance and order.

An implication of this characteristic is that education and age are important qualifications of a good leader. During the time of Plato, education was a determinant of competence for leadership. This was the case since only a few people with the financial capability to do so were able to pursue formal education, gain insight into the political affairs of the state, and develop the qualifications for leadership. This could explain Platos stress on formal education.

However, in the existential context, education has become a fundamental right. This means that anybody holds the right to become educated, albeit not everybody opt to pursue higher or continuing formal education. Excellence in education and mature attitude or perspective makes good leaders, with education taken to mean learning and knowledge inside and outside of the formal school system. Not all good leaders achieved high levels of education. Although there are no past or existing leaders who can be considered as philosopher kings, there are those who came close. Abraham Lincoln had only eighteen months of formal education but had passion for learning. Winston Churchill went to a private school and the military academy but praised more his education outside of the school. Nelson Mandela was expelled from university for activism. The philosopher is no longer constrained by formal education.     

Another characteristic of philosopher kings is their rarity based on unique characteristics and undeniable pedigree in philosophy. In this sense, Plato clarifies education as a qualification by considering education together with excellent philosophical prowess as the qualification for philosopher kings. This makes philosopher kings knowledgeable about state affairs, good governance, and leadership above ordinary individuals. This distinction enables philosopher kings not only to make the right decisions and actions over political matters but also exact compliance through their qualifications. (Philosophy Internet Resources 2005)

The implication of this qualification is only a few can become philosopher kings. Guardians cannot then come from the production class. The impossibility rests on their lack of uniqueness as commoners. Moreover, access to education and using time only for learning is a privilege that not many can afford. This context creates a situation where unique individuals with high levels of learning and passion for education are easily distinguishable.

However, Plato was unable to provide a clear-cut way of distinguishing individuals with unique characteristics to make them philosophers to be applied in the modern context. Variances in unique individual characteristics and the wide range of knowledge specialisation would likely create unique characteristics of philosophers in different ways. Perhaps this is settled based on the outcomes of governance but this still does not provide a means of distinguishing philosophers among leaders or leaders with philosophical prowess. Uniqueness of philosophers may not be as strong as justification for the ability to end social ills.

Still another characteristic of philosopher kings is superior professional skills, philosophical training, and disposition towards knowledge. Professionalism refers to the ability to grasp issues with precise and in-depth understanding. Guardians are able to discern issues with speed and address these issues with strength based on confidence or certainty towards decisions that are based on their specialised knowledge. A good track record of governance is an expression of professionalism. Philosophical training means excellence in intellectual exercise by engaging in debates or discourse with oneself and with other guardians over a wide range of topics. Disposition refers to the passion for learning and knowledge building. (Philosophy Internet Resources 2005) When these are put to use in governance, political decisions would likely yield just results.

The implication is on the merging of philosophy and political power when philosophical prowess is applied to the exercise of political power (Internet Ancient History Sourcebook 2005). This addresses the troubles of society that emerges from ill-governance. The problems could be expressed as incompetent leadership, irresponsible or faulty decision making, and poor judgment. When philosophers are made as political leaders and when leaders pursue a philosophical path, they are likely to exercise their roles and exert power in a manner that employs good judgment and competence. Political governance then ushers good results instead of problems.

This characteristic of philosophers applies even in the modern concept. Professionalism and informed decision-making are two characteristics expected from effective leaders. The great leaders had impeccable records of professionalism by making rational and responsive decisions, exercising discipline and self-control, and using information to understand issues before making responses. Lack of good judgment creates problems. The global economic recession can be attributed to poor regulation that created the sub-prime market bubble. Ineffective regulation is a result of leaders that do not depend on in-depth understanding of conditions or inability to translate information on situations into effective solutions. In this sense, the governance of a philosopher could have created effective regulations to prevent the string of events that created the recession.

The last characteristics of philosopher kings are excellent personality and a philosophers lifestyle. Guardians should exhibit the personality of a philosopher that reflects competency for good governance. These personal traits include excellent memory, perceptiveness, strength, courage, gentleness, truthfulness or reliability, self-control and other similar characteristics. These factors not only ensure good governance but also the acceptability of political decisions and actions by developing a good reputation with the populace. This maintains balance. A philosophers lifestyle means absorption in the pleasure of knowledge and learning to an extent that there is lack of concern for bodily pleasure. This lifestyle requires a high level of mental discipline, which philosophers have developed. (Philosophy Internet Resources 2005) Guardians with a philosophers lifestyle also ensure good governance by preventing corruption and abuse of power. These problems cause great trouble to society by upsetting the balance of resource use to the detriment of some sectors of society. By having a philosopher as leader or leaders who pursue philosophy, leadership is strengthened and the problems caused by poor governance are prevented or eliminated.

The implication of these personal traits and philosophers lifestyle is the justification of why philosophers make the best leaders and leaders should become philosophers. Pursuing a philosophical direction develops good leadership traits to establish a positive impact on society. This also prevents problems in governance that cause trouble to society. Good leadership traits are also needed in addressing social problems.

Personal traits are recognised to be qualifications for good leadership. Charismatic leaders and leaders with good reputations have a strong influence on the public in implementing solutions or directing society towards well-being. However, practicing a philosophical lifestyle is an entirely different factor. Living a philosophers lifestyles of shunning away from bodily pleasure in order to focus on learning and knowledge building in support of the fulfilment of governance goals does not find strong support in the physical reality or existentialist context. The concept of addressing basic needs of philosophers so they can concentrate on their role takes a different meaning in the lavish lifestyle of state leaders around the world. Many leaders tend to relish the material privileges of their positions. Personal interests are sometimes placed ahead of societys best interests. A number of leaders have been tried and found guilty of corruption and plunder, especially in developing countries. When this happens, the pursuit of a philosophical lifestyle weakens and the traits of philosophers may be neglected in governance. There are also leaders exhibiting a lifestyle closer to a philosophers mode of living. Abraham Lincoln and Nelson Mandela are both known for retaining a simple lifestyle in terms of material embellishments amid the abundance of resources available to them.

The difficulty in having a philosophers lifestyle creates a rift between philosophers and kings in the real life context. On one hand, philosophers focus on the pursuit of knowledge across the economic, socio-cultural, political, religious and environmental dimensions of social life. By focusing on knowledge building, philosophers de-prioritise material things apart from their basic needs. On the other hand, the exercise of political power requires the development of a good public reputation, which involves concern over material things such as appearances in public and towards other states. In inter-state relations, the heads of states represent the citizens to other countries. As representatives, leaders should have certain material amenities to reinforce the position as state leaders. The philosophers lifestyle does not really fit in the exercise of political power in the real life context. The exercise of political power also involves the pursuit of knowledge but not necessarily through a philosophers lifestyle. To have philosopher kings or to make kings philosophers, philosophy as envisioned by Plato needs to be reconciled with politics.

This can only be done by deviating from Platos utopian and purist idea of the philosopher king. Philosophy as the pursuit of knowledge is necessary to effective governance. However, there are certain things to be compromised including the strict adherence to a philosophers lifestyle in order to accommodate certain political realities such as the establishment of appearances and reputation in national and international politics supported by material things. A shabby looking leader would not receive much support from the people. As the representation of the peoples aspirations, the leader should exhibit an example of a good life, which in real life standards involves more than just meeting basic needs. In the modern context, technology and developments have heightened the standards of living. A state leader also needs to be concerned with physical appearances as representative of the state to other states.

Another perspective towards the Platos philosopher king deviates from philosophy in a contemplative state. Excellence in learning and knowledge building are needed for effective governance. According to Aristotle, the philosopher as king and the king as philosopher constitutes a disadvantage in governance not only because of the conflicts in the nature and expectations from both but also the impracticability of being both philosopher and king (Chroust 1968). An implication is that philosophy is not necessarily the only forte of the leader. Political power can be exercised by tapping into specialised or in-depth knowledge and continuous learning but not necessarily done solely by the leader. A state leader can still pursue knowledge through the advice of a group of philosophers. In this way, the leader can still provide good governance without sacrificing the positive contributions of philosophy to political power.

Platos concept of philosopher king becomes a challenge and even problematic in the existential reality. Philosophers should recognise their role as leaders and leaders should become philosophers. However, there are those pursuing the life of a philosopher who opt not to take leadership roles or are blocked from becoming leaders because of differences in the expectations from philosophers and as political leaders. There are also leaders who do not care about pursuing a philosophers life. While philosophical perspectives, qualities and skills usher good governance, it is difficult or even impossible to have a philosopher king in the physical reality or existential reality.

Whether Plato was correct in expressing that only when philosophers are kings and kings are philosophers that the troubles of society ends depends on the perspective of reality taken. In Platos dual reality and within the non-physical reality, the philosopher king exists and governs with justice to achieve a good society. The greatest criticism of Platos philosopher king is its limitations in the existential context. Society and its troubles exist in a changing physical reality so that the contemplative philosopher king cannot exist or sustained. Just leadership can also exist even without the philosopher king.

In many researches done in recent decades, theorists and other scholars have tried to demonstrate that human responses tend to deviate from the performance deemed normative according to various models of rational judgment and decision making. Individual rationality is therefore ways by which individual persons are able to analyze different situations and be able to make their own decisions and Judgments without any external influence. It can be compared to the type of lives people used to live during the pre-industrialization era. In this era, the main means of production was home based and in small scales where people were used to manufacture their food, clothes among other utilities.
 Technological rationalism is a mechanism that is usually associated with the industrial revolution where technology and new machines replaced the home based industries. Some theorists have argued that it the one which promoted modern development though it has weakened the human capacity over time which is quite critical.

Comparison and contrast between Marcues article and Forsters book
In the book The machine Stops Forster tries to describe a world in which almost all the society has lost the ability to survive on the earths surface and hence decided to live below the ground. Each person therefore decides to live alone and in isolation with all their spiritual and bodily needs met by the omnipotent universal Machine. Travel is allowed but its quite unpopular since its not necessary. The book dwells on two main characters namely Vashti and her son Kuno. The two live on the opposite sides of the world. Kuno tries to persuade his mother to endure a journey to his cell. He pleads with Vashti to stop being disappointed with the sensitized mechanical world. All the humans in the book come up with a kind of religion in which the machine is worshipped and they forget that it was them who invented the same machine. (Forster 321) The machine finally collapses and its civilization ends. The book tries to raise a concern that in the 20th Century man was in peril since he was depending more and more on technology for his survival without realizing that it was himself who created it. Its similarity with the article by Marcues is that they both dislike the effects that modern technology has befallen upon mankind. Marcues on the other hand tries to explain how the advent of technology has managed to destroy the previous and old-fashioned social structures of individual rationality and replaced it with technological rationality. (Forster 330)

On the other hand, the two books differ in that, in The machine Stops Forster tries to depict humanity as total dependants and worshipers of technology which is not the case as in Some Social Implications of Modern Technology which say that though is dependant on modern technology, he can still be able to find ways of including these modern technologies and come up with better ways liberating himself and ensuring that he lives in peace and harmony.

Summary of Some Social Implications of Modern Technology by Herbert Marcues

Herbert Marcues in his article titled Some Social Implications of Modern Technology tries to argue on the role of technology in modern industrial societies. In this article, he describes the historical decline of individualism from the bourgeois revolution times to the rise modern technological advancements. He claims that individual rationality was won in the struggle against regnant superstitions and also irrationality.

    According to the critical social theory developed by him, science and technology can be viewed as instruments of political and social domination. He also spoke of the technological a priori of the scientific and technical rationality that tend to project nature as potential instrumentality. Technological rationality homogenizes and harmonizes people and nature into neutral and inert objects that are subject to manipulation.

    Rationality is without difficulty co-opted by political and economic power. Science and technology however merely function in the service of social control. They could also be transformed to serve different ends, such as freedom, individuality and creativity. In the article, Marcues argues that technological rationality tend to undermine traditional individual rationality which stands for autonomy. It does this by employing efficiency as a lone standard of the efficiency notion to induce people to accept standardization, mass production, mechanization and bureaucracy. Marcues consequently argues that, appeals to enlighten and inform self interest and autonomy is viewed as progressively appealing, old fashioned and irrational in the face of technological rationality which makes compliance to seem quite reasonable and protest on the other hand seem unreasonable. (Mercuse 43)

    At around the mid 20th Century, political powers like fascism, state capitalism, and state socialism developed ostensibly rational and even pleasurable means of social control which integrated persons into a homogenous society. This resulted in the formation of a one dimensional society. Such a society is what eroded the capacity for individuality, practical resistance and critical thinking. Marcues however maintains that the same impersonal rationality which made individualism to become unnecessary could be collected to achieve positive results rather than repress human capacities.

    Technological rationality could also be used as an instrument to promote democracy, individuality and autonomy. Marcues is however pessimistic about the prospects and prediction for that transformation since the technological apparatus tends to include all opposition, he also maintained that it was principally possible. (Mercuse 57)

    Marcues continues to argue that the advanced and progressed industrialized societies are fond of employing science and technology to serve the existing systems of production and consumption and claimed that the technological reality required transformation itself if it were to lead to real human liberation, it could remain value neutral. His analysis of the role of science and technology in the manipulation of human needs through marketing, advertising and mass media was also extended. In order to increase productivity and dominate human and nature, the scientific and technical aspects of the society must be used. This will aid in creating a one dimensional individual who is readily conformed to a society that contributes in limiting freedom, stifles creativity, imposes false needs and co-opts all resistances. (Mercuse 63)

    Finally Marcues expresses hope that the society will one day develop technologies meant for the pacification of the struggle for existence. This will aid in reducing suffering and promoting peace and happiness. To develop these technologies he adds will require a political reversal.  In addition to that, a far-reaching and major shift from existing capitalistic mode of production is required to generate a new science and technology that would become the instruments of liberation and not domination. The new technologies will also bring new modes of energy sources, cooperative production, management and societies. On the other hand, the new science of liberation would serve the interests of freedom and will also help in satisfying the genuine and legitimate human needs.

Abortion remains one of the most emotional and divisive issues facing worlds policymakers today. This nature of abortions debate is however not surprising, bearing in mind that the attitudes and perceptions people have concerning abortion are largely shaped by their strong convictions regarding morality, religion, public health, human rights and women status in the society. Abortion has raised a lot of controversy in many nations, and several countries around the world are constantly faced with tough questions regarding the legality of abortion, especially in circumstances when pregnancy is not intended. A close look at the issue of abortion especially in the legal and societal perspectives, legalizing it is the best way of dealing with it together with the menace that result from children who are born out of unintended pregnancies (Hershenov, 2001).

Rape is one of the most horrible experiences any woman can go through and without proper counseling it can remain in a womans mind for the rest of her life. The matter can however become much more complicated if a woman conceives out of such devastating experience and even worse when compelled by the laws of the land to give birth to the product of such an awful experience. A child born to such a mother would act like a constant reminder of what the mother went through during rape period. Even if the law governing the country does not legalize abortion, they should at least permit it in some circumstances such as conceiving through rape. This would act as a great relief to the women who become victims of rape and conceive through it. Their healing process would be much faster enabling them to overcome the grief and sorrow that accompanies virtually all rape victims (Hershenov, 2001). 

Women do not always experience safe pregnancy there are some instances when pregnancy puts the life of both the mother and the unborn baby in danger. In such a case, if the pregnancy is not terminated, then it is possible for both the mother and the unborn baby to die. Law is meant to protect the citizens of the jurisdiction in which it is applicable. If then it cannot be applicable in saving the life of the unborn baby, it should at least be useful in protecting that of the mother. Just like in the previous case, it is completely irrational for the law and policymakers to stipulate and enact laws that illegalize abortion and thus risk the lives of both the mother and her unborn baby if the pregnancy is not a normal one. Women with such pregnancies should be legally allowed to abort and thus at least save their lives since it is not possible to save both lives (Griner, 1991).

The women have their human rights and the laws of a country should not be discriminative and oppressive by forcing women to give birth to children they do not want. Women have the right of giving birth to the number of children they want and compelling them through oppressive laws to give birth to more children would in fact amount to violation of their rights. If for example a woman does not want to give birth to more children because her financial status does not allow her to, then it will imply the children who are born out because the laws compelled their mothers not to abort them will together with their mothers and other family members live on over stretched financial resources. This might mean that they will not be in a position to receive good education, shelter, food and clothing and hence will live a miserable life. This is a scenario that is avoidable by enacting the right laws legalizing abortion (Dormady, 1997).

By making abortion illegal in a country does not mean that women who are determined to do so will not. For those women who can afford to move to countries like the US where abortion is legal, they will go there and have their abortion carried out and thus the law will not have served its purpose of deterring such women from terminating their pregnancies. By making abortion illegal, it can actually compel those women who are determined to terminate their pregnancies but do not have the financial ability to have it done in nations where it is legalized to use crude methods. They can opt to seek such services from unqualified medical practitioners since those who are qualified and are operating in the main stream medical facilities cannot offer them with such services. This therefore implies that these women will become vulnerable to various risks associated with terminating pregnancy through such methods. Some of them might end up dying while others may suffer from several complications, which will eventually have to be treated in the health care facilities and thus increasing the health care financial burden (Kreimer, 1993).

Children who are born out of unintended pregnancies simply because the laws are oppressive and they compelled their mothers to give birth instead of aborting them are likely to lack several essential requirements they need in their lives. Their mothers might have had very good reasons for getting rid of them before they were born. But because the law denied them that chance and were therefore forced to give birth to them, there are very high chances of such children being hated by their mothers. While at the look of it this might appear simple, the truth is that every child needs parental love in order to grow and develop properly. Without the love of the mother, a child will most probably only grow physically, while his or her social and emotional development is greatly hindered and impaired. This might have a lot of consequences not only to the child but also to the society as a whole. Most of such children who are forced by circumstances to grow without their mothers love end being a nuisance to the community as most of them develop criminal behaviors. In order to prevent such scenarios, the law should allow women to get rid of the fetus they do not want to carry since by being forced to continue with such pregnancies will only complicate the life of the child, the mother and the society (Wanderer, 1999). 

Anti-thesis
Despite the fact that rape is a traumatizing incident to its victim, by simply terminating the pregnancy does not imply that the mother will get over it. In fact, it would be a double tragedy for the mother who would have to live with both consequences of killing the innocent unborn child as well as the rape experience. Aborting a fetus conceived out of rape is not the best way of assisting a woman who has gone through such an awful experience get over it. Instead of the law giving such a woman the freedom to terminate the pregnancy, it should compel the government to provide facilities to assist such women to undergo the necessary counseling process and thus get the chance of recovering fully from the ordeal of rape (Hershenov, 2001). 

When the life of both the mother and the child are at risk if the pregnancy is not terminated, then the law should contain a special clause, whereby in such extreme and extraordinary cases, the mother is allowed to terminate the pregnancy. However, this would be a special clause whose main intention is not to kill either the mother or the unborn baby, but to save the life of the person who among the two that is, the mother and the child has higher chances of surviving (Griner, 1991).

It is irrational to argue that the womens rights are violated when they are denied a chance of carrying out an abortion. In virtually all cases, there is no law that should allow an individual to enjoy his or her rights at the expense of another individual. If women are allowed to terminate pregnancies on the grounds that by denying such rights would amount to violation of their rights, then the rights of the unborn children to life would be even more violated. The law should be fair and equitable to all, it should not be biased against the unborn children simply because they cannot speak for themselves and favor adult women most of who conceived while enjoying themselves. Every individual should take responsibility for his or her actions and pregnant women are no exception (Dormady, 1997). 
Law should not be enacted in a manner that it allows termination of pregnancies simply because by denying women that right, they will take off to countries where it is legal and carry out their abortions. It should also not be allowed because women who want to carry out abortion will seek the services of the less qualified medical practitioners. By allowing abortion because of such reasons would be similar to allowing people to commit murders or rob others simply because the law is not well enforced to make it effective in dealing with all crimes of such nature that are taking place in the country. Instead of the law allowing women to terminate pregnancies because they will either seek substandard services or will move to countries where it is legal, the law should be well enforced to ensure that women are deterred as much as possible from taking such steps (Kreimer, 1993). 

There is no logic in arguing that by terminating some pregnancies, the society will be saved from the various crimes that are committed by people who are born to parents who did not want them in the first place. It is not in order to commit a crime so as to prevent another crime, which after all might just be an illusion and never founded. Just like we have criminals who were born to mothers who had planned for them and provided them with every thing including love, but later turns to be criminals terrorizing their own families and society, is in the same way in which we can have criminals born to parents who did not want them in the first place. Furthermore, just as it is possible to have good people born to parents who wanted them, it is also possible to have very good people born to parents who given a chance would have aborted them. Abortion should therefore not be legalized on the grounds that the society is being spared from the possible criminals who are likely to be born to parents who did not want them (Wanderer, 1999).  

Synthesis
Rape being possibly one of the great ordeals that a woman can ever go through should not be allowed to torment a woman for the rest of her life when there is a way out. Even though there are people who feel that abortion is not the perfect means through which a woman can overcome the horrible experience of rape, the truth is that through abortion, a woman would be in a position to get rid of a substantial burden resulting from the ordeal. Abortion should therefore be legalized so that women who are victims of such an experience can get a great opportunity of getting on with their lives without extra financial and emotional burdens brought about by rape (Hershenov, 2001). 

When the pregnancy of a woman puts her own life and the unborn child in danger, then it is only rational to save the life of the mother. In most of such cases, the unborn baby has minimal or no chances at all of surviving. It would therefore not be prudent for any law to force a woman to go on carrying such pregnancy and thus risk her own life for a child with limited chances of surviving. In this case, abortion should be legalized since such a move would greatly relieve women with such pregnancies (Griner, 1991). 

In virtually all constitutions, women have a right of getting the number of children they feel they can be able to adequately take care of. By denying them such a right would amount to violating their rights. In most constitutions, life begins at birth and hence such constitutions do not provide any rights to the unborn children. Therefore, by making abortion illegal, the only people whose rights are violated are those of the mothers, while those of the child who does not exist as far as the constitution is concerned are protected. Abortion should thus be made legal so that most constitutions cease contradicting themselves (Dormady, 1997). 

In order to prevent pregnant women from moving to countries in which abortion is legalized for them to carry out their intended abortions, then it is only rational to enact laws that will make them to satisfy their needs locally instead of looking for them in other countries and thus make their countries to unnecessarily lose on the balance of payment. Again, it is quite evident that some women in countries where abortion is illegal usually seek for abortion services from unqualified medical practitioners. This has several consequences both to such mothers and to the countrys economy. Such women become more vulnerable to various complications that are associated with carrying out abortion unprofessionally and times they even die from such complications. In such a case, the law which was claiming to protect both the mother and unborn child and thus made illegal for an abortion to be carried out is at the end of the day unable to protect the lives of both the mother and the unborn child. In order to avoid such scenarios, it is only fair to allow women to abort and hence have a chance of aborting in a safe manner (Kreimer, 1993). 

Forcing women to give birth to children they do not want will only complicate things for the child, the mother and the entire society. The law can force the mothers to give birth to children against their wishes, but it cannot force them to love them and thus provide them with the much needed love to enable them grow not only physically but to also develop socially and emotionally and thus become important people to their societies instead of becoming liabilities to them (Wanderer, 1999).  

Despite the fact that legalizing abortion is one of the hotly debated issues in the world today, it should be legalized as it is a necessary social evil. People who abort do not just do it because it is a hobby to do so. They usually have sufficient reasons for taking such serious decisions and hence they should not be barred by law. By making abortion legal, mothers would be able to get rid of emotional and financial burdens they cannot bear.