Paste your essay in here..Machiavelli, Hobbes, and Locke were great political theorists who explored the relationships between human reason and human passion with context to ethics in politics. They each rationalized human nature and how that nature influences political regimes in their various renowned works of literature: The Prince, Discourses of Livy, The Leviathan, and The Two Treatise of Government. Of all the political theorists mentioned, Machiavelli has the more convincing diagnosis and prescription for the political condition of human beings because he addresses both the state of human reason and passion in a realistic way that explains the nature of humanity, and how to assert order and control over society. He does so through his work, the Prince, in advising princes and ruler how to succeed in politics by manipulation of human nature and when to apply ethics and morality in political decisions. In the Discourses of Livy, he famously quotes how men don’t how to be “altogether wicked, or altogether good”, their passion in the state of nature are driven by their own self interests. This outlook is the most pragmatic of the various political theorists of Modernity addressed so far.
Machiavelli was an Italian political theorist and author of the famous works, The Prince and Discourses of Livy. Machiavelli existed in a time before Hobbes and Locke and was known for his cynical discourse on the nature of humanity and the way society is most effectively policed. His book, The Prince, addressed to Lorenzo de’ Medici or any other potential politician, argues effective politics and rule with success as its sole focus. His rational for ““How we live is so different from how we ought to live that he who studies what ought to be done rather than what is done will learn the way to his downfall rather than to his preservation”(The Prince) is that reality is cruel and rather than creating an unobtainable utopia, a politician must entice his people by giving them what they wish to hear. When policing society and imposing laws, an effective politician will find greater success in giving the people what they wish to hear in order to persevere in the ruthless society which, we exist in, one must accept what is and not what ought to be. To appeal to your average citizen, a Prince or politician must study what the true desires and passions of his subjects are, rather than the truth of what they ought to do to achieve their goals and desires. He warns the politician to mistrust the intensions of those who seek to offer service or advice, such as mercenaries, who work for their own self-interest rather than loyalty, or advisors such as Machiavelli himself, who feel as though they have greater political authority. He argues for a tyranny by a cunning leader who is aware how not to be good. Honestly as a politician in dangerous and not the best policy when policing the uneducated masses who would rather be fed a dishonest promise, than receive a harsh truth. This stems from Machiavelli’s harsh reality that humans are by nature incapable of ruling themselves, and are generally unfit to rule in politics. Due to the cruel nature of men, “it is better to be feared than loved (if not both)” (The Prince), because fear motivates people to subject to authority. Machiavelli’s entire argument in this book stems on the concept of balance, that in order to be an effective and successful leader, one must lead with strong authority, and be careful not to provoke an uprising by doing anything to upset “the vulgar crowd” that is “taken by appearances” and appearing to be the good guy that they respects’ authority (The Prince). He advises the Prince to hire others to do the dirty work and to deceive the public for the sake of his own image, then he will maintain the support of the people and achieve peaceful society.
In Machiavelli’s Discourses of Livy, we see a discussion on the Republic of Ancient Rome which he applies the concepts of to his period of time in Italy. The Discourses of Livy is on how governments should manage their people, money, and resources. Religion and religious values can both influence and corrupt government and its people, and if a tyrant seeks to succeed, he should aim at acquiring a city with a corrupt government and seek to reorder it so that society accepts their new ruler. Religion can also give a Prince the ability to claim miracles and justify his authority by order of God. He uses example how Romans used religion to serve as a justification to reorder their city, and found success in doing so. Machiavelli also states how men don’t know “how to be altogether wicked, or altogether good” (Discourses of Livy).
Thomas Hobbes was a political theorist influenced by the English Civil War, a wartime with many casualties that burdened the country financially. Hobbes wrote the Leviathan, which discusses the narrative of why one ought to obey the authority of government. His justification was to avoid chaos, as he’d seen during his country’s wartime. He argued that within a State of Nature, before society formed, human’s true nature would be chaotic, and like Machiavelli, humans are incapable of governing themselves. Hobbes, too, had a cynical approach to human nature, that men only act within their own self-interest. This led to the creation of a Social Contract, between society and a form of authority. It stablished a government that exists to create security for all, because, as Hobbes argues, it is better to have security than liberty that leads to chaos. If men were capable of ruling over themselves without chaos ensuing, there would be no need for government. However, humans by nature are selfish and cruel. Throughout history of society, governments formed willingly, for the purpose of maintaining order. Hobbes argues that people need to respect the authority that rules over them, unless it is directly threatening their lives. Subjects should obey rulers because humans need order to organize their inherently selfish intentions. The basis for subjection by authority doesn’t come from a divine right, as historically justified, but instead by a social contract that requires complete obedience by the government for purposes of protection and security that human nature requires. Power of authorities is justified by their ability to control the evils of society.
John Locke was a political theorist born during the same period of time as Hobbes, and was also influenced by the English Civil war, however, took a much different approach to rationality of human nature. Locke was an advocate for tolerance of other religions, while at the same time advising separation of church and state. Government should exist to protect its subjects lives while not interfering with the soul, for example religious practices. Locke opposes Hobbes ideas regarding the State of Nature, and instead argues that it would’ve been peaceful rather than chaotic; “Men being by nature all free, equal and independent, no one can be put out of this estate and subjected to the political power of another without his own consent.” (Second Treatise).
In Hobbes’s version of the state of nature, “It is also a state of equality, in which no-one has more power and authority than anyone else; because it is simply obvious that creatures of the same species and status, all born to all the same advantages of nature and to the use of the same abilities, should also be equal in other ways, with no-one being subjected to or subordinate to anyone else, unless God, the lord and master of them all, were to declare clearly and explicitly his wish that some one person be raised above the others and given an undoubted right to dominion and sovereignty” (Second Treatise). This quote begins a complicated narrative where God is the divine authority in the state of nature, however gives no one the divine authority to dominion.
Locke also opposed Hobbes’s philosophy of how the people are required to subject themselves to authorities and may not rise up against them unless threaten by their lives. Locke was in favor of government influenced by the people, and citizens ability to rise up against leader when government is imposing unfair and harmful policy or decision making. The following aspect is that humans are born with inalienable rights to “life, health, liberty, and possessions” (Second Treatise). The Social Contract is where people voluntarily consent to rule that requires them to give up some personal liberties in exchange for protection by the state, but are still guaranteed their inalienable rights always. In the Second Treatise on Government, Locke justifies his statement of the inalienable rights with religious justification, that God gave the earth to us. This is where his argument weakens, since he allows tolerance of all religions, yet the evidence of his statements about natural rights is backed by Christianity alone, the rationalization here is flawed. When the state infringes upon these natural rights, the citizens have the right to overthrow the government.
Machiavelli’s works were by far the most elaborative on the relationships between human reason and human passion. Humans are by nature self-interested in their own passions and desires, and cast out reason. Due to the nature of men, politics is a unique territory for morality. In the Prince, Machiavelli advises politicians that “the end justifies the means” which means rules pertaining to what actions are considered don’t necessarily matter if the end result is success. Machiavelli’s outlook on politics during his time period mirrors plenty of aspects of politics now. To Machiavelli, politics is power. He is also one of the great minds of philosophy in deciphering the relationship of individual liberties and the rights of authority. Authority is justified as it controls society and instills security. Machiavellianism is a superior political theory in that it goes deeper in depth and provides more substantial evidence than Locke’s fragile justification for the existence of natural rights. Hobbes is similarly cynical of the true human nature and passions; however, Machiavelli not only acknowledges it, but advises politicians and princes through both his great works how to overcome and manipulate the masses into effective submission. Not only does Machiavelli accurate explain the true nature of humans when in a state of nature, he backs his claims with numerous historical examples. He asserts that politics is best studied through the analysis of previous successes and failures of regimes throughout history. His works remain relevant to modern day politics in context to politician’s manipulation and motivation to stay in a position of power. Support from constituents in necessary to be successful in any democracy or form of tyrannical power, and Machiavelli’s lessons of how to win the favor of the masses have withstood the test of time and remain equally as effective as ever. Hobbes’ argument that people must obey the Leviathan, at all costs accept death, differs from Machiavelli’s approach to how to maintain the masses support. His texts advise authorities to be mindful of the people’s perspective and maintain an appropriate appearance to keep peace in society. While, at the same time, recognizes that at times there might ought to be dirty work done, but that that work shall be delegated to another in order to manipulate the people into believing that the prince is in fact a good person. His argument was most effective describes solutions to the problems human nature presents in a “good society”, and his analysis of human reason and passion in relation to human nature is the most accurate depiction of what society reflects. Politicians are most successful when they manipulate people, which they often do. Humans are neither as “good” as Locke describes or “evil” as Hobbes suggests, men are merely out for their own self-interest. This also relates back to his concept of how it is better to be feared than loved, as men will be less likely to act against something they are fearful of punishment from, than someone they love that they can take advantage of without repercussion. Machiavelli tackles ethics in politics with the most pragmatic discourse.