It is very hard to find a political philosopher who is able to give a complete and fulfilling explanation of society. Theories are simply models to first analyze and then improve society. Hence, since many variables affect them, they are not objective, neither are all-encompassing. It is also necessary to draw a distinction between concrete solutions, which could be valid in real life, and desirable solutions, which could be imprecise relatively to some starting conditions. Nevertheless, it is important to remember that the role of policymakers is not to define factual rules just to maintain the status quo. Since they should vote laws with the purpose of improving our lives, only a normative, and even utopian, conception can change the actual situation.
If the current political system was to be overthrown, it should be replaced with a real democracy. Using the adjective real underlines that it would not be simply a liberal state with some democratic principles, but a community in which each single member is take into consideration. Policy makers should try to overlap the interests of everyone, no one excluded. Obviously it is very hard or even impossible to achieve it, but through compromises politics can attempt to improve our society considering all the voices. For these reasons, majority would not be the best solution because some people would be completely excluded. Also, to guarantee the application of democratic values, the government has to intervene to create the required conditions. It is insufficient to state some rights if there are not the conditions to fulfill them.
Rousseau and Rawls, two political philosophers, strongly believe in the idea of community and provide a state system which considers the interests of every citizen. Nevertheless, when it comes to concrete political decisions they both agree that even their systems would need a compromise since they were unlikely to be accomplished.
I will focus first on Rousseau’s reasoning and then on Rawls. Finally, comparing them I will overlap my conclusion. Several philosophers have been challenged by explaining society, how it began and how it should work. Some of them came up with impressive ideas which are still debated today. Even though some theories may seem more effective, they all show both fine and pointless arguments. However, reproducing reality dynamics, through a philosophical theory, results impossible because in the real world many variables contribute to create a complex system.
Rousseau starts assuming that human beings are better than how others philosophers, like Hobbes and Locke, describe them. They depict human beings in the state of nature on the influence of their conception of society. Hobbes, for instance, lived at the time of the civil war, which caused the death of many friends of his. In this paradisiacal state of nature provided by Rousseau, men are neither good nor bad. They live on their own; they are compassionate with others and have enough...