2000 Years of evolution of Western Political Philosophy, continuing to shape our present-day, conflicting, political ideologies…
Our present political and social conflicting ideologies, (including the ideas fought for during the Cold War) goes way back, thousands of years — no matter how many permutations there are of these main brands.
Social philosophy poses important questions on the relationship between the individual and the community: does the individual matter more, or the community? Communal values assume that it is the group and tradition — not the individual — that matters the most; thereby all resources belong to the entire group. Individual values put emphasis on the each person as a significant unit of society, meaning attention should be devoted to the self. Somewhere in the mist of time, philosophers all came to neither the realization that no one is completely altruistic nor an island. Therefore a balance between the two boundaries on the ancient question “Am I my brother’s keeper” must be formed to better define the meaning of “justice.”
Plato’s Republic believes that individuals following their natural instincts will harmonically fit into 3 categories of citizens — effectively integrating into a healthy society, where both the individual and society will prosper. Aristotle follows Plato’s thinking varying only in the “Nature VS Nurture” debate. Instead of Plato’s natural-state of collectivism, Aristotle believes that “the citizen should be molded to suit the form of government under which he lives.” This strain of social-engineering doctrine formed a starting point for Utilitarianism — by Bentham and Mill, which optimizes the overall distribution of pain and pleasure to each societal unit, called hedonic calculus. Skinner’s scientific study of Behaviorism later confirms the validity of Utilitarianism through his famous “classical-conditioning” and “operant-conditioning” experiments.
His empirical approach to prove the malleability of human nature — and his book “Waldon” — sped up the acceptance of Socialism (Marx) and the more radical forms of Liberalism (Rawls). Karl Marx argues that in order to establish an Utilitarian society, fundamental and extremely powerful economic forces must be controlled (centrally) and optimized for the common good of individuals — “fairness.” By sharing Marx’s belief of individual fairness as the foundation of justice, John Rawl advances on this idea of social-engineering of both the economic and political forces. Certain inalienable values and rights must be made equal, Rawl asserts according to the Constitution. The differences, however, in the distribution of income and wealth must also be made to everyone’s advantage (a functional perspective of society). Communitarianism and Cosmopolitanism ensues Rawl’s thinking.
Robert Nozick’s Theory of Entitlement is a continuation of Adam Smith’s market-driven economy, where the invisible hand of the market automatically take care of everything, including individual’s life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. But even Adam Smith has previously stated in his “Wealth of Nations”: “when the rich gather together, they conspire against the poor”; “if society doesn’t regulate its [economic] wolfs, they will devour all the sheeps. (And later during the 18th Century, famous, free-market, political economists, David Ricardo and Mathius, also pointed out similar flaws in a complete, laissez-faire political economy.)
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, it seemed like the conflicting strains of Political Philosophies have finally been solved with a decisive victory for Democracy, Free-market, and Individual Freedom. However, with the rise of Communist China as a super-power and the rise of Terrorism on the Global scene, the previous decisive line of victory of the Cold War seemed to be blurring again.