Thomas More and Niccolo Machiavelli on Human Nature - Essay Example

Thomas More and Niccolo Machiavelli on Human Nature and Ideal Communities Thomas More and Niccolo Machiavelli on Human Nature and Ideal Communities Thomas More and Niccolo Machiavelli, two greatest thinkers of the Renaissance age, have elaborated innovative ideas for their days, and it is possible to say that if they had been adopted they would have a very long-lasting effect. In reality, however, the authors reasonably state that the human nature, namely such features as peoples’ concentration on material things and their fraility, is an obstacle on the way of establishment of the ideal state. The Differences between More’s and Machiavelli’s Ideas. It is necessary to describe the differences that are present in the views of the mentioned thinkers which will lead to understanding of their fundamental works. Speaking about Niccolo Machiavelli, it is first necessary to mention that his “The Prince” narrates about the real situations from the state life of his days, and many pieces of advice he gives to the prince are based on real historical facts which prove his point of view. That is, Machiavelli is far from idealistic philosophic position and, therefore, is a materialist; moreover, in many places of his “The Prince” there are evidences that his materialistic views even justify immoral actions and behavior which would be beneficial for the governor. Moreover, his “The Prince” can be referred to as a manual on how to capture and hold the state power. (Machiavelli (Adams), 1515 (1996), 1-130). Thomas More, on the contrary, supports idealistic views whish are perfectly reflected in his “Utopia”. He pays attention to such categories of the human life as moral, religion, dignity, nobility and many other positive features, which, compared to Machiavelli, serve as means of improvement of life. More also focuses on the life in general and covers many of its aspects, for example, the problem of thieves and the punishment they deserve, whereas Machiavelli limits only with the issue of the state power and the concept of a successful reign. Finally, More describes a non-existent ideal state, Utopia, with the same non-existent (and probably impossible to exist) life organization, which, however, also give some good suggestions as to how to make the life of the society better. (More (Wooton), 1516 (1999)). The mentioned differences, primarily the materialistic versus idealistic outlook, shape the consideration of each thinker’s ideal society and influence on their perception of human nature. Human Nature and Ideal Community according to Machiavelli. Machiavelli states that human nature plays a significant role in the process of power conquest and may be both profitable and destructive for that who enterprises to capture the state power. In this regard, materialism of a human being is crucial: “…men more quickly forget the death of their father rather than the loss of their patrimony” which means that a human being can be easily bought. (Machiavelli (Adams), 1515 (1996), 80). Niccolo Machiavelli also states that “…the nature of the people is variable, and whilst it is easy to persuade them, it is difficult to fix them in that persuasion”. (Machiavelli (Adams), 1515 (1996), 26), that is, people are unstable and tend to alter their behavior, points of view and other things based on the reasons of their own profit. As it has already been mentioned, human nature, and this concerns primarily the governor to whom the thinker’s advice is addressed, and such features as greed and need for power may justify crimes and breach of the rights of the others if it is necessary for satisfaction of the state need. (Machiavelli (Adams), 1515 (1996), 1-131). So far as the ideal community is concerned, Niccolo Machiavelli states that, even though many of the mightiest powers were defeated and survived the period of decay, it is quite possible to try to establish a state and a community which would be easily reigned and which could be referred to as an ideal one. It is necessary to stress that Machiavelli pays much attention to the person of the prince and to his role in establishing any society and state, including the ideal one. Even though the fact that the state governors must be strong and wise cannot be denied, it is obvious that it is impossible to rule a state solely, that is, the governor shall have support from the bodies of the state power. At that, Machiavelli also states that the republic form of government and the citizens being completely free is beneficial to the extent that it helps the states last longer: “Rome and Sparta stood for many ages armed and free”. (Machiavelli (Adams), 1515 (1996), 57). It is, therefore, possible to conclude that, according to Machiavelli, an ideal state shall have republic form of government, it shall not oppress its citizens and guarantee its freedoms, and it shall have wise and strong politicians to rule it. In reality, on the contrary, it happens that the state either has no strong politicians with the mentioned features or the state itself is unable to successfully adopt a necessary direction of its development. Moreover, the population tends not to believe the politicians in general and may become indifferent to all their efforts in the field of the state governing. Thomas More on Human Nature and Ideal Community. Idealistic views of Thomas More do not necessarily mean that the writer idealizes a human being, on the contrary, his analysis of such negative social phenomenon as theft is so fundamental that he uses the imperfection of the existing social system, and of the human nature, to justify the right of his fictional Utopia for existence and borrowing some things from its life organization. The commonality of More and Machiavelli in this regard is that both admit the human greed which makes some people gain more and more while the others have to live in poverty as a result of this. While Machiavelli generalizes this in his “The Prince”, More gives a concrete example from real life of England, when greedy sheep owners capture new lands which were used for bread cultivating: “…an insatiable wretch… resolves to enclose many thousand acres of ground, the owners, as well as tenants, are turned out of their possessions by trick or by main force, or, being wearied out by ill usage, they are forced to sell them”. As a result, those left with no way to earn money start their criminal activities and become “negative” in the eyes of the society, while this society does not take into consideration the mentioned unjust circumstances. (More (Wooton), 1516 (1999)). Another negative feature of the human nature is observed on the example of the Fool who tried to seem wise and supported the opinion of a mighty person. (More (Wooton), 1516 (1999)). This proves the fact that a human nature is very unstable and people tend to look for better opportunities for themselves which makes them sometimes leave their friends and close people in favor of material welfare. As it has already been mentioned, More describes a fictional community in which life is organized in such a way that there are no negative features, and the state itself is a welfare state guaranteeing prosperity and abundance for everyone. This is opposite to Machiavelli’s realistic description of Italia of his days, and the detailed consideration of this community raises doubts whether it is possible to reach such a state of affairs. According to More, private property is the thing which creates all the problems of the society and leads to negative phenomena, such as the above mentioned theft. As a result, More describes Utopia as a state where the private property does not exist, on the contrary, all the goods in abundance belong to the people, and there is no need to practice theft. Moreover, money is also absent which means that people do not compete with each other in the amount of their wealth. The Utopians, “…dividing the day and night into twenty-four hours, appoint six of these for work, three of which are before dinner and three after…” which was an object of dreams of the workers of More’s time who had to work definitely more than six hours a day. (More (Wooton), 1516 (1999)). In an ideal community, as per More’s suggestion, all the people are engaged in some activity and there are no idlers which theoretically excludes taking up criminal activities. The engagement of the population is controlled by the state by means of its officials who perform surveillance so that to exclude the possibility of procrastination. (More (Wooton), 1516 (1999)). The above mentioned material aspects of an ideal community aside, More pays much attention to the philosophic and religious aspect of life which, obviously, is a product of the life realities of the time of “Utopia” writing. The Utopians’ philosophy is that the happiness is the ultimate goal of one’s life, but this happiness cannot be reached by means of violating the rights of the others. In their life, they must rely upon the rational mind. Moreover, religious tolerance is the thing that is often absent even in today’s societies, but 500 years ago it was a complete innovation which, probably, was the thing More wanted to be introduced into the life of England. The Utopians mostly believe in the supreme God, but those claiming themselves to be atheists are not allowed to occupy state positions and are under surveillance so that their ideas would not corrupt the others. (More (Wooton), 1516 (1999)). Summarizing More’s ideas of an ideal community, it is possible to suggest that he modelled it on the basis of England’s one but deleted all its drawbacks and added mechanisms of state control which both would perform efficient control and would not oppress the freedom of the population. It is difficult to say whether this state is reachable, and the experience of most of the world’s socialist countries proves the contrary: following the communist doctrine, they have remained for a very long time regimes suffering from economy misbalance and population poverty. Conclusion Thomas More and Niccolo Machiavelli made great attempts to describe the way in which it was possible to make the life of their societies better. In their writings, they reasonably stated that the human nature plays a great role in this regard, that is, that the governor ought to be careful when ruling the state, and that people pay much attention primarily to the material aspect of life. The differences in philosophic views, that is, Machiavelli’s materialism versus More’s idealism, predetermined their different views on an ideal community. References Machiavelli, N. (1515 (1996)). The Prince. Translated by Adams, R. Humanities Press. More, T. (1516 (1999)). Utopia. Translated by Wooton, D. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing. Read More