Political Philosophy - Term Paper Example

?Running head: POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY Political Philosophy Political Philosophy Introduction Most people have varying political philosophies and ideals. Regardless of differences however, most people apply these political philosophies into their daily activities and their perceptions of political, economic, social, and even cultural happenings. In the larger political arena, political philosophies are usually established by the state’s constitution and these perceptions serve as standards in the running of the state’s political and governmental affairs. Inasmuch as the political philosophies are protected by state legal mandates, most people have their individual and personal political philosophies, and these philosophies may not often be similar to the state-supported philosophies. This paper shall be a discussion of my personal political philosophy. Specifically, it shall be a discussion of my liberal political philosophy, largely based and supported by John Locke’s philosophy. A discussion of my political philosophy as applied in the Iraqi invasion shall be established by this paper followed by a discussion related to gay marriage. My other political views shall also be considered, as well as the relationship of this philosophy with other political philosophies. Body I have a liberal political philosophy. By this, I mean that I believe in the freedom of the people to decide their own fates within the bounds of law and morality with limited interference from other people, other states, and from the government. I adhere firmly to this philosophy because I believe that man was by nature born free and possessing of these inherent liberties. As such, he is free to decide his destiny and his fate as an individual and as a free person (Gaus, 1983). I also believe that allowing the individuality of people to emerge can help ensure the favorable development of human beings. It also allows them to become the person they most want to be, without anyone or anything preventing them from fulfilling their ultimate goals (Mill, 1963). I believe this to be the best ideology which a person can apply in his life because through such ideology, he will be able to get closer to the perfection he desires. Only under liberal principles and philosophies can a society which is ideal for the greatest number of people be achieved. Every man has an opportunity to shine and to gain success under this philosophy and it would also serve to equalize economic disparities among the people, thereby giving the poor people a chance to seek their fortunes and dreams under the protection of this philosophy. My political philosophy acknowledges the fact that a favorable life is one which is freely chosen and one where a person can develop his individual and unique qualities based on his plans in life (Galston, 1980). I also adhere to this political philosophy because I strongly oppose the dictatorial and authoritarian ideals which are contrary to the ideals of liberalism. I also do not adhere to the idea that ‘might makes right.’ I believe that we started out as a people without any government, without police authorities or even private properties, and yet with natural and inherent reasoning, we have managed to coexist favorably with each other and have managed to resolve our differences using natural laws. By adequate and logical reasoning, it is sufficient to think that people have their rights to their labor and their properties (IEP, 2001). Eventually, with time, people have been able to discover that in order to coexist with each other, they needed to establish social contracts with each other, and from such contract, political obligations and the management of private properties have been established (IEP, 2001). With these precepts, I adhere to the liberal political philosophy because it is a philosophy which is likely to benefit the most number of people in fair and naturally efficient ways. I am also a liberalist because the philosophy it espouses are fertile grounds for the application of rights and privileges, including the freedom of speech, due process, equal protection of rights, and freedom for the governed. It is also a rich and diverse ideal which can apply to most people regardless of their culture, their economic status, and even their political ideals (Gaus, 2000). Under this liberal political philosophy, humanity and society are at the very center, protected and supported in their self-determination and in their goals towards better lives. Aside from my liberal political ideals, I also believe in the nationalist political philosophy. Nationalist ideals are based on the fact that members of a nation are one in their national identity and that their actions help achieve and maintain the self-determination of the state (Canovan, 1996). I adhere to this principle because I believe that all members of the state must owe their allegiance to their governing authority and must try their best to protect the integrity of their country. This principle helps promote and support the role of the nation and the importance of people supporting the nationhood of their state and their government. Nationalism helps provide a balance to the liberalist principles, preventing people from being too liberal in their ideals and in their belief of non-accountability (Hastings, 1997). It provides the people a sense of responsibility and ownership of their nation and all its processes. In effect, the sense of morality, cultural values, and political ideals which support the nation are also necessarily supported under the nationalist principles. The collective action of the people is also supported under this philosophy, one which is supported by patriotism and civic community values (Gellner, 1983). In considering these two political philosophies, I prioritize the liberalist political philosophy because in order for the principles of nationalism to flourish, liberalist ideals must first be secured, protected, and accepted by the people. Without liberalist principles in place, nationalism cannot be expressed by the people. In considering the application of the liberalist political philosophy, this essay shall discuss the 2003 US invasion of Iraq. I believe that based on classical liberalist principles, the Iraq attack should not be justified. Liberalist principles point out that governments must not intervene and interfere in the activities of other governments and, in this case, in other states. The government is only allowed to intervene if the actions of the other state or the other government would harm other people (Karnick, 2007). When harm would likely manifest for other people and other governments, action may be taken to maintain and protect liberalist principles. In the case of the Iraq war, no harm was seen and proven as yet. Allegations of the presence of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) were not adequately proven. The United Nations was in the process of carrying out the necessary processes to subject Iraq to inspections for these weapons when the US and its allies decided to launch its attack on Iraq (Lieberfield, 2000). It was more or less a unilateral decision on the part of the US to attack Iraq and no adequate proof of harm to the US or other countries were apparent before the attack was launched. In effect, based on liberalist philosophies, and given the opportunity to decide on this issue, I would not have agreed to the attack on Iraq. I would have first established a definite threat of WMDs and an actual attack on the US by Iraq before I would have decided to launch an attack against the country. Classical liberalist principles also adhere to the belief that all nations have sovereignty over their own affairs and each state has the right to carry out its activities as it chooses, unless its activities would affect negatively on other countries (Karnick, 2007). Iraq had a right of sovereignty over its affairs, and at the time of the attack and even in the weeks prior to the attack, it was carrying out its affairs without affecting other nations. There was therefore no logical or even legal reason for the US to launch its attack on Iraq. When the actions of one nation affect other states, other states have the right to protect their citizens and to remedy the situation for their people (Karnick, 2007). Iraq therefore had the right to protect itself against any attack and aggression from other countries – in this case, from the US advancing troops. The US was the aggressor in this case because it did not have adequate justification for its actions. The subsequent actions of the US, in changing Iraq’s government and in supervising the establishment of its constitution are actions which clearly indicate how it has overstepped its bounds. Helping the Iraqi government in managing the country’s political affairs are also unjustified actions because they reflect interference in a government’s independence and political right to self-determination. Saddam’s atrocities against the US, including his people may be sufficient justification for the invasion of Iraq, however, these reasons were not used to justify the attack. Moreover, even if these reasons were used to justify the attack, the appropriate legal processes within the principle of statehood must be utilized by the concerned parties. Only under these conditions may the interference in Iraq be justified. Even if the US attack on Saddam Hussein for his atrocities were to be justified, limitations on the engagement would have been unjustified under the classical liberal approach. After a period of occupation, and of assisting the country in getting back on its feet, any military operations should have been ended (Karnick, 2007). However, in this case, the US lingered in Iraq and did not pull out its forces in the region even after a new Iraqi government was installed. Once again, there is a blatant interference in the affairs of the independent country. The job of the US is to protect Americans against imminent or threatened attack. The imminent and the threatened attack on the US and on other countries were already neutralized. The US troops should have pulled out from Iraq after neutralizing the perceived threat. Even if Iraq did not exist under liberalist philosophies, the US was basing its actions on liberal principles of democracy. Liberalist ideals dictate that a state must not intervene in the actions and concerns of other independent states because doing so would violate the principles of sovereignty (Gaus, 2003). If given the chance to render policy on the Iraq situation, I would apply my liberalist ideas and pull out all troops from the region. Moreover, no attack would have been ordered against Iraq until the actual threat was established. An actual threat on Americans and on other countries would justify my right to protect my people and my country. Under liberalist principles, people have the natural right to rid themselves of and to protect themselves from threats on their self-determination. There was no actual threat on Americans before and during the Iraqi invasion. Even if there were threats, these were never actually proven and even in the aftermath of the attacks, no sufficient threat on the American people was seen. No WMDs surfaced and no threatened or planned attack on the US and its allies were ever proven by the invading military and by the intelligence officers. Instead, the attack was seemingly justified with the arrest of Saddam Hussein and the routing of the insurgents in the region. As far as the US threat is concerned however, no such threat was ever uncovered. In retrospect, the US invasion of Iraq is very much against liberalist ideals. Another issue where liberalist ideals may be applied is on the issue of gay marriage. Proposition 8 was passed in California and this proposition basically did not recognize the right of homosexuals to marry. Based on liberal principles, this proposition should not be implemented because it prevents the practice of an inherent right – that of the right to marry (West, 1998). The constitution even recognizes the practice of this right through the due process and the equal protection clause. If given the opportunity to apply liberalist principles on the issue of gay marriage, I would strongly express support for its practice and application. Liberalism declares that the same right to marry which applies to heterosexuals must also apply to homosexuals. It is a right to privacy protected by the constitution, same as the right to marry outside one’s race, the right to use birth control and the right to have an abortion (West, 1998). It is part of the inherent decisions of individuals on considerations with their daily activities. It is an example of behavior which is no other person’s business, but one’s own (West, 1998). Allowing gay marriage to be protected by legal processes would indicate a significant increase in individual liberty. Given the chance to decide on the application of this liberty, I would liberally apply and interpret the equal protection clause, giving homosexuals the right to decide their own fate and to enjoy the same right which their heterosexual counterparts enjoy. I believe that denying homosexuals the right to achieve legal status as a married couple and to enjoy all the privileges and implications of such married state is against the principles upon which the United States of America is founded on. Points of discussion have been raised on the right of homosexuals to marry due to their inability to procreate and to form a family unit. Such arguments are however unjustified in the face of adoption options for gay couples and in vitro fertilization as means for homosexuals to have and to raise children. Arguments have also been raised on the ability of the children to adjust to homosexual parents. However, studies have already established that there is no significant difference on qualities of children raised by homosexual parents, and those raised by heterosexuals (American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychology, 2011). In considering therefore the arguments against gay marriage, there is no justifiable reason against recognizing its existence and application. Liberal ideals support the right of people to determine their fate and the direction of their lives. Moreover, there is no logical reason for denying homosexuals the right to enjoy the communal privileges of marriage (West, 1998). Marriage is not an individualistic institution, it is a communal undertaking for couples and liberalism recognizes this communal nature. In effect, its communal nature must necessarily include non-discriminatory applications of activities and of rights. As such, homosexuals must therefore be given the same opportunities as heterosexuals. It is an inherent part of their right to self-determination. My political philosophy is very much related to John Locke’s liberalist philosophy as Locke speaks of the inherent nature of individuals to liberty and self-determination. In some ways, it is also related to Hobbes, inasmuch as he speaks of human authority requiring justification and of a society where social and political disparities have no place. Hobbes’ belief in the absolute rule of the sovereign is however not wholly compatible with liberalism (Williams, 2003). However as far as his idea of the rule of a benevolent sovereign – a sovereign who can ensure the protection of people’s rights and of basic interests – there is some similarity between my ideas and that of Hobbes. I believe that these basic interests and rights must be protected by the state and that people have a responsibility to protect these rights as well. My ideas of liberalism are tempered by some authority from the state, from governmental powers that can protect the equal exercise of people’s rights. Liberalism cannot after all exist without boundaries. I believe that the government must remain as the authority who would administer to the rights of the people and who must ensure the balance of these interests. In some ways, my political philosophy also has similarities with that of St. Augustine. Augustine speaks of man being morally responsible for his actions, and this moral responsibility sets a limit on his free will (IEP, 2005). Augustine believes that although man has free will, this free will must be within the bounds of moral responsibility. Since Augustine’s beliefs are also richly supported by his Christian beliefs, morality plays a significant part of his teachings. Basic Christian teachings speak of fairness, of love, care, and the importance of living morally upright lives. As a result, Augustine’s philosophy does not allow for the absolute exercise of one’s liberty. I also do not believe in the practice of extreme liberalist ideals because adapting such ideals would cause a clash of rights and liberties. Chaos would reign as a result. Conclusion My political philosophy is based on liberalist ideals. I believe that people are inherently born to be free. As such, people have the right to live their lives in the ways they want and using the means they need to determine their own fate. This liberalist ideal is also largely based on John Locke’s liberalist ideals. In applying this ideal to the Iraqi invasion of 2003, I believe that such attack should not have been carried out because it is tantamount to interference in the Iraqi people’s right to determine their fate and the direction of their lives. Without any clear justification and without US interests being threatened, such invasion should not have been carried out. In considering gay marriages, my ideals would prescribe for the protection of such right to marry. There should be an equal protection of such rights, same as that afforded to heterosexuals. My ideals are also related to those of Augustine and Hobbes, inasmuch as they speak of free will, moral responsibility, and the inherent rights of people to self determination. Reference Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychology (2011). Children with Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Parents. AACAP. Retrieved 22 November 2011 http://www.aacap.org/cs/root/facts_for_families/children_with_lesbian_gay_bisexual_and_transgender_parents Canovan, M. (1996). Nationhood and Political Theory. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Galston, W. (1980). Justice and the Human Good. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Gaus, G. (1983). The Modern Liberal Theory of Man. New York: St. Martin's Press. Gaus, G. (2000). Political Concepts and Political Theories. Boulder, CO: Westview. Gellner, E. (1983). Nations and Nationalism, Oxford: Blackwell. Hastings, A. (1997) The construction of nationhood: Ethnicity, Religion and Nationalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2001). John Locke (1632-1704). Retrieved 22 November 2011 from http://www.iep.utm.edu/locke/ Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (2005). Augustine (354—430). Retrieved 22 November 2011 from http://www.iep.utm.edu/augustin/ Karnick, S. (2007). A Classical Liberal View of the Iraq War. Ideas in Action. Retrieved 23 November 2011 from http://www.ideasinactiontv.com/tcs_daily/2007/05/a-classical-liberal-view-of-the-iraq-war.html Lieberfeld, D. (2005). Theories of conflict and the Iraq war. International Journal of Peace Studies, 10(2), pp. 1-21. Mill, J. (1963). Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, J. M. Robson (ed.). Toronto: University of Toronto Press. West, R. (1998). Universalism, Liberal Theory, and the Problem of Gay Marriage. Fla. St. U. L. 25 Rev. 705. Williams, G. (2003). Hobbes: Moral and Political Philosophy. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 22 November 2011 from http://www.iep.utm.edu/hobmoral/ Read More