Analysis Of Marty

Analysis Of Marti

Jake Bookard Political Theory Dr. Bowden August 20, 2018 Analysis of Martin Diamond: Ethics and Politics, The American Way Bookard 2 Bookard 2 The ethics and politics within someone could determine one’s beliefs and action towards one another. Is there really an American way of life? Do the American people really have a sense or understanding of how ethics is involved into politics? The Founding Fathers expresses their distrust in the human race and humans sense of selfishness.

The control of man was the biggest challenge of the Founding Fathers because man didn’t have a foundation of political life. Although the Founding Fathers, have a compelling argument that they have no hope in human mankind, their argument fails because the Founding Fathers didn’t consider the quality of man, the un-selfishness of man, the moral values of man, and lack of ethics. Modern man is faced with the hardship of the Founding Fathers’ strict rules. Diamond said “the Founders—had no hope and offered none for any ultimate organic change in the way men conduct themselves” (97). The term man is referred to society as one and its sense of having no hope in the future.

With man having a lack of ethics, it becomes difficult for man to apply it to politics. The use of ethics in politics refers to man having their individual interests and working into one particular goal in politics. The Founding Fathers believed that man couldn’t perform well in different situations and they should establish regulations. Their beliefs in Hobbesian views changed the Founding Fathers’ views on man. The sense of having no hope refers back to man having no understanding of how to operate without leadership.

They believe that man couldn’t be trusted with the fate of others. Man’s right to life wasn’t a quality of the Founding Fathers. They believed a strong foundation upon creating a set of rules man should follow; that would limit man’s potential. In modern times, man is perceived as an overcomer and works to make progress within society; not only for one’s own interest. Unfortunately, modern times see man as good, unlike the Founding Fathers’ suggestion that man is untrustworthy.

Man wouldn’t change due to the fact of being self-centered. It’s human nature to have self-interest because without it you wouldn’t survive. Diamond claims “the idea of an unchanged human nature characterized by rapacious self-interestedness, is humanistically indefensible” (96). The Founding Fathers suggested and applied a Constitution that outlined the standards man should follow. The efforts of the Founding Fathers to create a balanced government aimed to differ from other countries’ governments and to prevent the involvement of man’s self-interest.

Diamond claims “the idea of man as Calvinist in its sense of evil, and as Hobbesian in its view as selfish and contentious” (97). Without a balanced government, there would be a King or one person with unlimited power, and their self-interest may dominate. Having unlimited power gives one person control over others, potentially leading to evil intentions toward man. It’s best not to involve self-interest of man with decisions that could better or destroy a country. It’s clear that man without self-interest will threaten the beliefs of the Founding Fathers, and man with self-interest will support their views on the nature of man.

Man’s unchanging nature is the biggest downfall of the Founding Fathers’ beliefs. The nature of man and human knowledge is questioned by the Founding Fathers’ concept of human excellence. Man wasn’t considered capable of making proper decisions affecting mankind’s fate. Knowledge within man wouldn’t appear when critical decisions are faced. Without the rules established by the Founding Fathers and their idea of having no hope, America wouldn’t be any different from other countries.

They had no faith in man to go beyond selfish desires. Complete chaos would occur if the Founding Fathers had no hope in man’s unchanging nature. “Again in comparison with the pre-modern perspective, that cost is the solid but low foundation of American political life” (97). Chaos such as no government, no authority, no leadership would undermine political stability. This shows that the lack of hope within man, leading to no rules, would result in chaos.

According to my perspective, man cannot be seen as inherently good. Setting no limitations for man wouldn’t stabilize the foundation involving ethics and politics. The ongoing changes in American society suggest that the Founding Fathers’ distrust of man isn’t beneficial for the future of mankind. Their lack of hope and understanding of man forced them to make decisions for mankind’s sake. However, I believe the Founding Fathers were cautious regarding the control of man, not overestimating human potential.

Today’s society shows that man is willing to accept and handle different situations. They didn’t realize that man is capable of being intelligent and trustworthy. Challenges faced today demonstrate that man can overcome adversity. The world today is filled with untrustworthy and self-centered individuals who only care about their own interests.

Every day, people face challenges which support the actions of the Founding Fathers. They prove that man can be intelligent and trustworthy through their actions. The evolution of American society depends on human nature and societal behavior. Involving politics without regard for ethics can threaten societal stability. Without ethics and moral values, human nature would be corrupted, destabilizing social and political structures.

Paper For Above instruction

The foundational beliefs of American political philosophy, as articulated by the Founding Fathers and later analyzed by scholars like Martin Diamond, reveal a complex understanding of human nature and its implications for governance. Central to this discourse is the skepticism about human capacity for self-regulation and moral virtue, which led to the establishment of institutional checks, such as the Constitution, designed to mitigate individual self-interest and prevent tyranny. This essay will explore the validity of the Founders’ views on human nature, their reliance on a constitutional framework, and contemporary perspectives that challenge or support their assumptions.

Historically, the Founding Fathers’ distrust of human nature was rooted in Enlightenment philosophy, particularly Hobbesian pessimism about mankind’s inherent self-interest and propensity toward chaos without authority. Hobbes famously posited that in the state of nature, life would be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" unless governed by an absolute sovereign. The Founders, influenced by this view, believed that human beings were primarily driven by self-interest, making individual passions and greed the root causes of social disorder. Hence, their focus on establishing a system of checks and balances, separation of powers, and a constitution that would limit personal ambition and safeguard against tyranny.

Martin Diamond’s critical analysis underscores the significance of American political thought arising from this skepticism. He argues that the American political character is fundamentally shaped by a pragmatic recognition of human limitations rather than naive faith in human virtue. The Constitution reflects an understanding that humans are naturally selfish and contentious, necessitating mechanisms to channel these traits toward collective goals without allowing any single individual or faction to dominate. This aligns with Diamond’s assertion that the American political system is designed to compensate for a pessimistic view of human nature, emphasizing institutional virtues over moral virtue of individuals.

Despite this, contemporary society often presents a more optimistic view of human potential. Modern evidence indicates substantial capacities for altruism, trustworthiness, and moral progress. Psychologists have documented instances of cooperation, empathy, and collective action that challenge the assumption of immutable selfishness. For example, social experiments demonstrating altruistic behavior and societal efforts to promote ethical standards suggest that human nature is complex and malleable. These developments pose questions about the efficacy and necessity of the strict controls envisioned by the Founding Fathers.

Nonetheless, proponents of Diamond’s perspective argue that despite individual acts of kindness, systemic issues often arise from unmoderated self-interest. Economic inequalities, corruption, and political polarization serve as manifestations of inherent human tendencies. For instance, the financial crises and political scandals in recent decades illustrate how unchecked self-interest can threaten societal stability. Therefore, the constitutional mechanisms and the rule of law remain essential to restrain destructive impulses, reinforcing the relevance of the Founders’ skepticism today.

Additionally, the debate extends into the realm of ethics and morality, questioning whether human nature can be cultivated through education and cultural institutions or remains fundamentally self-centered. Educational systems and civic engagement initiatives aim to promote moral virtues; however, their success is variable and context-dependent. The enduring relevance of constitutional frameworks, as advocated by Diamond and the Founding Fathers, lies in their pragmatic acknowledgment of human limitations, emphasizing the importance of structure over moral uplift alone.

In conclusion, the analysis of Martin Diamond's critique reveals that skeptical views of human nature have profoundly influenced American constitutional design. While modern society demonstrates that humans can display altruism and moral progress, systemic issues rooted in self-interest persist, validating the necessity of checks and balances. The ongoing dialogue between the empirical evidence of human cooperation and the traditional skepticism underscores the importance of institutional design that accounts for human imperfections. Ultimately, understanding the complex facets of human nature remains central to sustaining a just and stable society, reflecting the enduring wisdom of the Founding Fathers’ cautious approach to human virtue and politics.

References

• Diamond, Martin. The Spirit of American Political Thought. Harvard University Press, 1992.
• Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. Edited by Richard Tuck, Cambridge University Press, 1996.
• Montesquieu, Charles de Secondat. The Spirit of Laws. Translated by Thomas Nugent, Cambridge University Press, 1989.
• Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press, 1971.
• Sunstein, Cass R. The Cost-Benefit State: The Future of Regulatory Policy. Oxford University Press, 2014.
• Taylor, Charles. A Secular Age. Harvard University Press, 2007.
• Tribe, Laurence. American Constitutional Law. Foundation Press, 2019.
• Wilson, Woodrow. The State. Harvard University Press, 1895.
• πCohen, Joshua. How to Do Things with Rights. Princeton University Press, 2014.
• Mead, G. H. Mind, Self, and Society. University of Chicago Press, 1934.