Rockridge High School
Taylor Ridge, Illinois
Teacher: Barb Downey
The Ideal Society
By Amber Freyermuth
12th grade
Society can be improved, even if we cannot achieve the “ideal.” Some philosophers, like Plato and Socrates, believe that we must limit knowledge and give the power to the philosophers to achieve this society, while others, such as modern thinkers Gabel and Scruton, believe that we must unite. Still others believe that the ideal society is just is not possible. We will never achieve the ideal, because God creates everyone differently. Some people dream of honor and virtue, while others dream of fame and fortune. Even though we cannot make everyone’s dream come true, we can make life less demanding. Society can be improved by educating the people, bringing the people together, and treating everyone equally.
Plato and Socrates think alike on many subjects. This most likely comes from the fact that Socrates was Plato’s mentor. Socrates believes that one must “discern knowledge from appearance” in order to be a good philosopher. In other words, the philosopher must be able to tell good from evil. Then the person will have the knowledge to rule over everyone. Although Plato thinks along the same lines, he believes that to have the perfect society, we must limit the knowledge of the common people. This way, the people would be content because they do not know any better. The philosophers would be the guardians, and their one goal would be to serve everyone else.
While Plato and Socrates believe that philosophers would be the only ones serving one another, Gabel and Scruton believe that everyone should serve one another. People must become more united in order to create a better society. Scruton believes that we must do this through the social contract, a nationalistic duty of each person to watch and care for their neighbors, and we must be patriotic. Loving our country enough to die for it will unite our people and bring peace to the land. Gabel, however, believes that we must care for each other out of the goodness of our hearts, a spiritual renewal in our public lives. We must not isolate ourselves from one another.
Bringing people together is a very strong point, but Rand and Aristotle see things a little differently. Rand and Aristotle both think logically. Rand believes that we should remove love and compassion from human interaction. People should only believe in themselves, earning exactly what they get. If one relies on others, one will fail. One should not care for others, because he or she does not expect people to care for him or her. People should be very individualistic. Aristotle does not think that people should be individualistic; however, he does not believe the ideal society is possible. Society can be improved, though. We must have governments that only govern small areas of land. For example, if there were one large government for the whole United States, without representatives from the smaller state governments, the nation would fail.
According to the philosophers, education is a key point in striving towards the ideal society. Everyone must be educated. One of the reasons so many people do not get along today is that they simply do not understand one another. For example, one of the strongest motives for racism is that people do not understand the life-style of people different from them, and usually we fear what we do not understand. If we educate people to understand one another and their different customs, then they will not be as afraid. Education will also help with cutting down the rainforest and global warming. Maybe people would change, if they understood that they were cutting off their children’s air supply. If people understood the consequences of their actions, they would change their appalling habits. So by educating people we can create a more understanding world and even improve its condition.
By educating people, we will also bring them together. People should be brought together two ways - through the social contract and through compassion for one another. People should be proud to be citizens of the earth. We must put aside our differences and come together for the sake of our planet. We will destroy our home if we keep fighting useless wars because of hatred. By putting aside our differences and coming together, we will create a strong union, but this union must also be accompanied by love, the one emotion that can actually tie every single person together. Love is the one opposition that can destroy hate. By loving one another, reaching out when someone needs it, and being compassionate, we will help each other when the time comes.
Being loving and compassionate to bring everyone together is good, but we must not let it get in the way of treating each other equally. The laws must treat each person equally. Although it would seem good to have a more understanding judicial system, in reality, that would never work. If we let one person go because he or she committed a crime in the heat of anger, we would have to let all of the others go as well. Some people would lie to get out of going to prison. If anything, we must make our legal system more objectified. Even the insanity plea is being misused. People must have the same punishments for crimes no matter what the circumstance. From the wealthy superstar, to the average bum, there should be no bias. Neither nationality, class, nor creed should influence the decision of the judge or jury. In this way, the legal system would remain equal.
Educating the people, bringing the people together, and having a government that treats everyone equally is a good start to improving society. Many people over the years have had thoughts on this very subject, from great philosophers to today’s average teenager. God creates everyone to be different. Perhaps the best society we can have is a society where everyone, including philosophers and teenagers, is trying to achieve the ideal world together.
Questions
Q1- Number the “fault lines” mentioned in paragraph one, #1 to #7 according to your personal priorities.
The following is listed from most important to least: The role of the government is the most important, because it determines how the country is run and how the people are treated. The next is abortion. The baby that is killed could have been the next Einstein. Welfare reform is a good program in that it gives money to people who cannot afford to live. Environmentalism is important for the future of our children and grandchildren. Health care is important, because many people need health to survive. Gun control is good, but it is hard to get all of the guns. Taxes help to pay for all of these things, so they are not that bad.
Q2- In paragraph three, what is meant by “defeat of community”?
“Defeat of community” means the defeat of the relationship in community members. For example, most people do not talk to their neighbors. They keep themselves isolated from the love and care of people around them.
Q3- Do you sense “the pain of isolation” in the adult’s in your community? Explain.
No, I do not sense the pain of isolation in the community around me. I have a very strong family life, with two parents who love each other very much. I also have a strong church community, with members who love and care for one another. They call and meet with one another when it is needed most.
Q4- Discuss your feelings about the SAT in light of paragraph six.
I agree with Gabel on SAT and standard testing. I believe that the SAT only tests how well you remember things on that one day. The student may have just had someone close to them die or a horrible fight with a friend. The tests also does not test how hard students work to achieve their goals. A student may be a really bad test taker, but still work hard to get good grades. Some students know everything on the test but freeze when a test is put in front of them.
Q5- In considering a future career, what are you “prime motivations”?
My prime motivations in choosing in future career are choosing something that will make me happy, something that I will love doing everyday. It will be something that I would do without being paid any money.
Q6- What do you think about a less “objectified” legal system?
I do not agree with a less objectified legal system. The laws must treat everyone equally. If we let one person go because they committed a crime in the heat of passion, then we would have to let everyone go. People would lie just to get out of prison. It would also be too easy for the system to become corrupt. Judges would let people off for money, saying that they were too emotional when they committed the crime. Even today the insanity plea is being misused. People will say they were insane at the time of the crime to get out of prison.
Q7- Would you describe yourself as an idealist? Why or why not?
No, I would not describe myself as an idealist. Although things such as the ideal society would be nice, I do not believe that we can ever achieve them. I believe that people sin, that we are not perfect, and that we never will be.
Q8- Share an anecdote about a local idealist over age 40.
My bassoon teacher is a real idealist. Over the years she has believed in my playing ability, even when I sound really bad or have not practiced. She has not only done this for me, but for many students. She has developed some good musicians.
Roger Scruton
Q9- How does Scruton describe the differences in political culture of Islam and the west?
The people of the West are bound together by the social contract, a civic duty to another and their children. They believe in the laws of the land because they decide on them. They feel a nationalistic pride in their country regardless of ethnic background or religion. The people in Islamic society, however, are bound together by religion. Whether or not they believe in the laws and punishments of the government, they will abide by them because of their duty to their religion. Therefore their duty is to their religion, not the care of their country or its citizens.
Q10- What does Scruton suggest are the prerequisites in Western societies for citizenship?
Scruton says that the prerequisites for Western society’s citizenship are a sense of patriotic public spirit and a commitment to the preservation of the social contract. The good citizen recognizes that the state looks to the pleasure of the majority of the pleasure of the individual.
Q11- What is the danger to the Western social contract that Scruton identifies in the last paragraph? Do you think the Western social contract involves “patriotic self-sacrifice”? Should it do so, in your opinion? Why or why not?
The erosion of national society will endanger the social contract. If people lose their nationalistic pride, they will no longer be bound together. They will not fight to keep their country alive and thriving. Sometimes the social contract requires a patriotic self-sacrifice. People must fight and even die to make the country better for those in the future. For example, the colonials fought the Revolutionary War in order to create a better country for their children. The social contract calls for this so that the country will keep growing and getting better.
Ayn Rand
Q12- Comment on the quote taken from Ayn Rand’s book, Atlas Shrugged. Do you agree with it? Why or why not? Have you read Atlas Shrugged?
Although I have not read Atlas Shrugged, I still do not agree with the quote I read. The problem is that people have emotion. Even though a person may not care about other people, he or she cannot stop those people from caring about him or her. If someone needs help, they should receive it from the people around them. The only way the human race will survive is if we care enough to help and support one another. If we isolate ourselves, we will fail.