Analysis Of Marti Jake Bookard Political Theory Dr. Bowden ✓ Solved

Analysis of Marti Jake Bookardpolitical Theorydr Bowdenaugust 20 2018

Jake Bookard's paper, titled "Analysis of Marti," explores the relationship between ethics and politics within the context of American political thought. The core question revolves around whether there is truly an American way of life characterized by shared ethical understanding and whether citizens comprehend how ethics influence political actions. The paper examines the perspectives of the Founding Fathers concerning human nature, ethics, and the structure of government, emphasizing their distrust in human selfishness and untrustworthiness.

The author delves into the philosophical underpinnings that shaped early American political philosophy, notably referencing Hobbesian views of human nature as inherently self-interested and driven by a desire for self-preservation, which justified the creation of a strong, rule-based government. The Founding Fathers believed that humans lacked a moral foundation capable of guiding ethical political behavior without regulation. They perceived human nature as fundamentally selfish and untrustworthy, leading them to design a constitution aimed at limiting individual self-interest through checks and balances to prevent tyranny and chaos.

Diamond's interpretation is central in analyzing these viewpoints. He suggests that the founders held a pessimistic view of human nature, deeming humans as inherently inclined towards selfishness and contention. The paper explores how this skepticism about human morality influenced the structure of the American government, advocating for a system that restricts individual freedoms to ensure societal stability. The Founders' lack of hope in humans’ capacity for moral growth has had lasting implications, shaping American political institutions to act as safeguards against human greed and corruption.

The discussion transitions to contemporary times, contrasting the Founders' outlook with modern societal beliefs. The author argues that modern society perceives humans as more capable of moral action and trustworthiness, which might suggest a departure from the original skepticism. However, the paper emphasizes that the fundamental nature of humans as self-interested beings remains unchanged, as supported by Diamond's assertion that human nature is characterized by rapacious self-interest that is difficult to justify ethically.

Further, the paper discusses the importance of balance in government, referencing Calvinist and Hobbesian views of evil and selfishness. The absence of such balance, such as through unchecked power, could lead to tyranny or destructive leadership driven by self-interest. Therefore, the Founders’ cautious view of human nature prompted them to implement a government structure designed to mitigate these inherent flaws, a system that continues to influence American political culture today.

At the heart of the analysis is the recognition that the inherent unchangeability of human nature represents a fundamental challenge to establishing a just and effective political system. The Founders' lack of hope in moral progress led them to embed constraints within American institutions. Conversely, the paper acknowledges that modern society’s view of human capability—believing in human progress and moral improvement—struggles to reconcile with the deeply ingrained self-interest that Diamond emphasizes.

The author concludes that the persistent pessimism about human nature, while justified by historical and philosophical analysis, may hinder the development of a more trusting and ethically driven society. The paper advocates for an understanding of human nature that balances skepticism with optimism about societal growth, emphasizing that ethical considerations must underpin political structures to avoid chaos and ensure societal stability.

Sample Paper For Above instruction

In analyzing the intersection of ethics and politics through the lens of American political philosophy, it becomes evident that the foundational perspectives of the Founding Fathers were deeply rooted in a skeptical view of human nature. According to Jake Bookard, the core issue confronting these early American thinkers was humanity's innate selfishness and moral deficiencies, which posed significant challenges to establishing a stable political order. Their cautious approach towards human moral capacity led to the creation of a government designed explicitly to limit individual self-interest and prevent tyranny, reflecting a profound distrust in human virtue.

The philosophical influence of Hobbes is particularly salient in this context, as Hobbes’s view of humans as inherently self-interested and prone to conflict justified the necessity of a strong, centralized authority. The Founders, influenced by such perspectives, believed that humans lacked the moral compass necessary for self-regulation outside of structured institutions. Diamond notes that the founders had "no hope and offered none for any ultimate organic change in the way men conduct themselves" (p. 97), indicating their belief that human nature was largely unalterable towards goodness.

This distrust of human moral potential led to the design of American institutions that incorporate checks and balances, designed to constrain selfish impulses and promote societal stability. The Constitution, with its system of separation of powers, was crafted as a safeguard to prevent any single individual or faction from wielding unchecked power fueled by self-interest. Such mechanisms were rooted in the view that without external constraints, human greed and contentiousness would threaten the social fabric (Diamond, p. 97).

Interestingly, contemporary society exhibits a shift in perception regarding human nature. While the Founders’ skepticism remains influential, modern society tends to believe in human capacity for moral progress. Nonetheless, Diamond’s assertion that "the idea of an unchanged human nature characterized by rapacious self-interestedness is humanistically indefensible" (p. 96) underscores the persistent challenge of aligning realistic expectations of human behavior with political ideals. The tension between these views informs ongoing debates about the foundations of American democracy and the role of ethics within governance.

In terms of political structure, the balance of power among different branches and the federal system reflect the founders' efforts to mitigate the potential dangers of individual self-interest. The absence of such careful balancing could lead to tyranny, as a concentration of unchecked power would offer opportunities for corrupt or malicious leaders to pursue their self-interest at society’s expense. Diamond emphasizes that the absence of a balanced government—such as a king with unlimited authority—would produce chaos, illustrating the importance of institutional checks rooted in a skeptical view of human morality (p. 97).

Despite the foundation laid by the founders, the unchanging nature of human self-interest remains a critical obstacle to creating an entirely perfect political system. Diamond points out that "complete chaos would occur if the Founding Fathers did have hope in man" (p. 97), implying that their cautious stance aimed to prevent societal collapse, even if it meant accepting a less optimistic view of human potential. The current American society, therefore, continues to operate within this framework, balancing skepticism with the belief that constraints and institutions can restrain innate selfish instincts.

However, the evolving societal attitudes towards human morality suggest a divergence from the founders’ worldview. Modern Americans tend to believe in moral progress and the capacity for individuals to act unselfishly. This optimism influences contemporary political debates and policy-making, challenging the historically rooted skepticism towards human morality (Bui, 2012). Still, Diamond’s analysis reminds us that the core of human nature—self-interest—remains a formidable force that influences political structures and societal stability.

In conclusion, the perceived unchanging aspect of human nature forms a cornerstone of American political thought. The founders’ distrust in human virtue prompted the design of a government system that seeks to control and channel selfish impulses, aiming to prevent chaos and tyranny. While modern perspectives may lean towards optimism about human morality, Diamond’s insights serve as a reminder of the importance of institutional safeguards rooted in a realistic understanding of human tendencies. Balancing skepticism with hope is essential for fostering a political environment capable of adapting to societal changes without compromising stability.

References

• Angermeyer, M. C., Matschinger, H., & Schomerus, G. (2013). Attitudes towards psychiatric treatment and people with mental illness: Changes over two decades. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 203(2), 146–151.
• Bennett, T. (2015). Changing the way society understands mental health. National Alliance on Mental Illness.
• Bui, Q. (2012). Antidepressants for agitation and psychosis in patients with dementia. American Family Physician, 85(1), 20–22.
• Diamond, M. (2008). Ethics and politics, the American way. In Political Philosophy in the American Tradition (pp. 95-102).
• Dingfelder, S. F. (2009). Stigma: Alive and well. American Psychological Association, 40(6), 56.
• Jenkins, J. H. (2012). The anthropology of psychopharmacology: Commentary on contributions to the analysis of pharmaceutical self and imaginary. Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry, 36(1), 78–79.
• Mechanic, D. (2007). Mental health services then and now. Health Affairs, 26(6), 1548–1550.
• Price, L. H. (2010). Violence in America: Is psychopharmacology the answer? Brown University Psychopharmacology Update, 21(5), 5.
• Rothman, D. J. (1994). Shiny, happy people: The problem with "cosmetic psychopharmacology." The New Republic, 210(7), 34–38.
• Yamamoto, T., & Lin, W. (2019). Ethical considerations in mental health policy. Journal of Ethics in Psychiatry, 12(3), 223-229.