Machiavelli and Hobbes Assess Aristotles Polity - Case Study Example

Running head: Machiavelli and Hobbes assess Aristotle’s polity Machiavelli and Hobbes assess Aristotle’s polity In the following paper, Aristotle’s polity and Machiavelli and Hobbes’s theories on politics are discussed. A detailed analysis of each theory is given in comparison to each other and in comparisons Aristotle’s polity. Finally, there is a detailed discussion on how and why Machiavelli and Hobbes’s concepts on proper political legitimacy would not be parallel to Aristotle’s application of human nature to produce adequate political schemes for each separate society. Machiavelli and Hobbes assess Aristotle’s polity In his time and concerning his immediate history, the great thinker Aristotle believed political thought was frustratingly struggling between two ideological entities and so he proposed a conjoined fetus, named polity. Its parents were democracy and oligarchy, and Aristotle was God giving birth to the new thought from the best parts of both and without the worst parts of either. Aristotle said there was a truth in each that had to be reconciled and it is. The 16th and 17th centuries saw the emergence of two political thoughts that proposed singular views on government and the structure of society. Niccolo Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes put forward their views and solutions on each and each directly influenced political ideology immensely. Each of them lived in a time and place of political turmoil, Machiavelli lived in Florence at a time of continuous political turmoil and Hobbes lived in England during its civil war. Aristotle, Hobbes and Machiavelli each designated in their works the best “practical” kind of government. For Aristotle, it was the aforementioned polity, while for Hobbes and Machiavelli; it was some sort of monarchy where there would be one sovereign or prince that would command all or a community that pledged it’s obedience to a authority that promised protection. Aristotle had a profound influence on political philosophy because he invoked challenging discussions of persistent concerns of political philosophy: the role of human nature in politics, the relation of the individual to the state, the place of morality in politics, the theory of political justice, the rule of law, the analysis and evaluation of constitutions, the relevance of ideals to practical politics, the causes and cures of political change and revolution, and the importance of a morally educated citizenry. It has been a common view among political philosophers, especially Aristotle, that there exists a special relationship between moral goodness and legitimate authority. He believed that the use of political power was only rightful if a ruler whose personal ethical makeup was strictly virtuous. Thus rulers were counseled that they must be sure to behave in accordance with conventional standards of moral righteousness. The rulers did well because earned the right to be obeyed and respected because they showed themselves to be virtuous and morally upright. Niccolo Machiavelli criticizes at length the moral idealistic theory on politics in his best-known treatise, The Prince. For Machiavelli, there is no moral basis on which to judge the difference between legitimate and illegitimate uses of power. Authority and power are essentially coequal: whoever has power has the right to command; but goodness does not ensure power and the good person has no more authority by virtue of being good. Machiavelli argues that the only concern of the political ruler should be the acquirement and upkeep of power. He argues that the notion of legitimate rights of ruler ship adds nothing to the actual possession of power. The Prince purports to reflect the self-conscious political realism that integrity and right are not adequate to win and sustain political office. Power characteristically defines political activity, and is required for any thriving ruler to know how power is to be used. Only by the proper application of power can individuals be brought to conform and then the ruler is able to maintain the state in protection and wellbeing. Machiavellis political theory represents an effort to exclude issues of authority and legitimacy from consideration in the discussion of political decision-making and political judgment because he acknowledges that good laws. He says, “Since there cannot be good laws without good arms, I will not consider laws but speak of arms” (Machiavelli 1965, 47). In other words, the legality of law rests entirely upon the threat of coercive force; authority is impossible without the power to enforce it. He concludes that fear is always preferable to affection and violence and deception are superior to laws in effectively controlling a state. Machiavelli observes that “one can say this in general of men: they are ungrateful, disloyal, insincere and deceitful, timid of danger and avid of profit…. Love is a bond of obligation which these miserable creatures break whenever it suits them to do so; but fear holds them fast by a dread of punishment that never passes” (Machiavelli 1965, 62; translation altered). Machiavelli has a theory on the imposition of power; people obey only because they fear the consequences of not doing so, whether the loss of life or of privileges. And of course, power alone cannot obligate one, inasmuch as obligation assumes that one cannot meaningfully do otherwise. According to Machiavelli, people are bound to follow purely in reverence to the superior power of the state. For example If I think that I should not obey a particular law, what eventually leads me to submit to that law will be either a fear of the power of the state or the actual exercise of that power? It is power, which in the final instance is necessary for the enforcement of conflicting views of what I ought to do; I can only choose not to obey if I possess the power to resist the demands of the state or if I am willing to accept the consequences of the states superiority of coercive force. It is worthless to speak of any claim to authority and the right to command, which is detached from the possession of superior political power. The ruler who lives by his rights alone will die by those same rights, because in political conflict those who prefer power to authority are more likely to succeed. Without exception the authority of states and their laws will never be accepted when they are not supported by a show of power, which makea obedience necessary. The methods for achieving obedience are varied, and depend heavily upon the foresight that the prince exercises. Hence, the successful ruler needs special training. That ruler is best suited for office, on Machiavellis account, who is capable of varying her/his conduct from good to evil and back again “as fortune and circumstances dictate” (Machiavelli 1965, 66). It is not a coincidence that Machiavelli also uses the term virtù in his book The Art of War in order to describe the strategic prowess of the general who adapts to different battlefield conditions as the situation dictates. Machiavelli sees politics to be a sort of a battlefield on a different scale. Hence, the prince just like the general needs to be in possession of virtù, that is, to know which strategies and techniques are appropriate to what particular circumstances. Virtù is to power politics what conventional virtue is to those thinkers who suppose that moral goodness is sufficient to be a legitimate ruler: it is the touchstone of political success. Thomas Hobbes established “sovereignty by institution” as people who mutually pledge themselves to a common authority. When those same people are endangered, and they promise their submission then they are practicing “sovereignty by acquisition.” According to Hobbes politics are defined as legitimate on whether or not a government, authority, can effectively protect its population and legitimacy is not based on how the government came to power. However, the obligation the people have to the government will cease to exist once the government fails to protect the people. Hobbes main concern was that an effective government, no matter what form must have absolute authority. Its powers must be neither divided nor limited. Legislation, enforcement, taxation, etc. are connected in such a way that if one of these obligation are not upheld then the rest fall. Examples are when legislation is written without any given interpretation or law enforcement does nothing to protect the community or enforce written laws. . Hobbes argues that for a government to work i.e. the terms of “essential rights of sovereignty” to be effective, these rights that are held by different bodies that disagree in their judgments as to what is to be done but this cold also result in degeneration of an effective government through disputes.. In order to impose limitations on the authority of the government, one must have disputes that are incapable of being solved and if each person decided for himself or herself whether the government should be obeyed then there is the possibility of a government crumbling. To avoid the horrible prospect of governmental collapse and return to the state of nature, people should treat their sovereign as having absolute authority. Even though Hobbes encourages the government as having absolute authority, he also makes a point of recognizing that the subjects in a state reserve the right to disobey their government if the governments orders will inflict harm on their lives or their honor. However the previous mentioned exceptions are no longer exceptions if the common wealth of the community’s survival depends on it such as in the case of civil war. His ascription of apparently inalienable rights , the “true liberties of subjects,” however seems mismatched with his guard of absolute sovereignty. And if the sovereigns failure to provide adequate protection to subjects dissipates their obligation to obey, and if each person is to judge for himself or herself the adequacy of that protection then it seems that people never were organized enough for nurture to have more significance over nature. Finally the most important aspect of Hobbess political philosophy is his treatment of religion. It seems that Hobbes is trying to demonstrate that there is compatibility of his political theory with core Christian elements, even though Christian religious views goes against the idea of affording one entities absolute authority but Hobbes’s theory advocates for. Based on the analysis of Machiavelli’s and Hobbes’s view on political theory from their respective time periods, it is evident that neither would with Aristotle’s polity because Aristotle’s theory depends on four principles, teleology, perfection, community, and ruler ship and each of their philosophies do not consider the state as a whole but solely the benefits of absolute authority and the responsibilities of the ruler in order to ensure power of the people. With Aristotle, in the principle of teleology, he argues that the concept of nature is crucial in defining how humans are adaptable for politics or for life in a city-state situation. It is important to recognize that one solid government structure is not appropriate for every single human, which Machiavelli and Hobbes do not take into consideration. Second is the principle of perfection, where human beings achieve their ultimate goodness when they achieve full attainment in their natural function. Meaning that each individual has a meaning, a purpose in life, and that purpose is necessary for his or her entire society’s ability to function. Aristotle recognizes that absolute perfection is not necessarily attainable, but that doesn’t mean one should do his or her best in attaining perfection. An individual’s actions are a means to the best end, in order to work cohesively with their surroundings. Machiavelli and Hobbes do not consider the full potential of an individual, only that of one ruler or an entire government. In their governments, it seems more like a dictatorship when one controls many instead of many helping many. In the principle of community, a city-state is more desirable because it is considered more self-sufficient and where the community is depended on, not just one individual or government but that doesn’t mean that the people are without authority. In the principle of ruler ship, Aristotle believes in a ruling element in order to create rules, order, and a sense or direction for a community’s advancement. He also acknowledges that a different ruling system is needed for different communities. Finally, inappropriate rule will result in disorder and injustice. All of which Machiavelli and Hobbes would disagree with because their objective is to focus on a certain type of government that is assumed to work for every society, not considered the human nature of people to not only have a purpose and reach their potential but each philosopher does not recognize the importance of individuals contributing to the community in order to make the city-state more self-sufficient. Finally Machiavelli and Hobbes do not consider the disorder and injustice an absolute authority and one ruler can have on a nation. References Kraut, Richard (2002). Aristotle: Political Philosophy. Oxford. Machiavelli, Niccolo (1988). The Prince, Q. Skinner and R. Price (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Strauss, Leo (1936). The Political Philosophy of Hobbes: its Basis and Genesis, Oxford. Warrender, Howard (1957). The Political Philosophy of Hobbes: his Theory of Obligation, Oxford. Viroli, M (1992). From Politics to Reason of State: The Acquisition and Transformation of the Language of Politics 1250-1600. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Read More