A Description Of Machiavellis, Hobbes, and Lockes Works - Term Paper Example

Due: Thoughts of Modern and Ancient Philosophical Thinkers on Politics This essay will focus on bringing out the distinguishable thoughts of modern and ancient philosophical thinkers on politics in order to capture the different ideologies that arise from the different parties. Aristotle, one of the ancient Greek philosophical thinkers, political views mainly lie on the aspects of teleology, perfection, communism, rulership, and rule of reason. The works of modern philosophers such as Machiavelli, Hobbes, and Locke have challenged Aristotle’s ideologies by bringing out different aspects of a political society. It is important to note that these philosophers also held different political views. Therefore, this paper will focus on giving a description of Machiavelli’s, Hobbes’, and Locke’s works in order bring out their views on politics in correspondence to the type of government or leadership they found suitable. Machiavelli’s, Locke’s, and Hobbes’ understanding of politics depict the modern kind of politics in the current and former society. They do this by bringing out forms of government they saw to be most effective in their time. However, their ideas differ from each other. Machiavelli wrote the book Prince with the intention of bringing out what should be practiced in leadership. Through a series of political historical events and reasoning, Machiavelli is able to put across the science of politics that should be found in a society. Machiavelli starts by defining what republics or principalities are, and how individuals get to assume the position of leadership. He brings out an important aspect that dominates his work, which mainly focuses on how familiarity controls the political world in the context of those who assume leadership. Machiavelli indicates this in the second chapter when he states that leaders of a hereditary state find it easy to control a kingdom because they are accepted by the society, compared to leaders who take a state by force and rule it (Machiavelli2). The Second Treatise of Government presented by Locke differs from some of the arguments that brought forward by Machiavelli. Locke identifies that the concept of hereditary exists, and he uses Adam to show that even though he was the first human being God did not grant him or his children power to rule over the world (Locke 2). Hobbes also states, “if it be lawful for a monarch to dispose of the succession by words of contract, or testament, men may perhaps object a great inconvenience “(Hobbes 121). The fifth chapter of Prince brings out the strategies that a prince can use in order to occupy states that they have conquered. However, his arguments of how a prince can manage setting up leadership in foreign land show how politics lacks morality. Chapter 5 explains that leaders can only achieve dominance in a free state if they subject those living in it to a series of unfair treatment. This identifies that Machiavelli did not advocate for democracy in states that were held captive because he credits leaders like Cyrus and Romulus in chapter six for using force to conquer states. Locke touches on power and politics in the society in chapters 6 to 12. He brings out paternal power and condemns how kings link it to the political world. He criticizes monarchial governments and argues that those who rise into power through absolute monarchy go against nature and civil rights. He argues that no man is above law because he is still a member of the civil society (Locke 31). Machiavelli continues to argue that individuals who progress over time and become leaders cannot be able to maintain their positions, and uses the Duke of Milan to illustrate how manipulation, courage, and wisdom is the only way one can acquire and retain power. Irony emerges when Machiavelli condemns Princes who acquire kingdoms through treacherous acts but advocates that leaders should inflict pain and then right their wrongs to compel his subjects to forget the despicable acts. This shows that Machiavelli supported the fact that a Prince should have to indulge in acts of crime by stating "therefore, a prince…..if he is wise ought not to fear the reputation of being mean, for in time he will come to be more considered than if liberal” (Machiavelli 74-75). Machiavelli’s quote strongly depicts that he only believed in a tyrant-based leadership. Commonwealth is an aspect that Locke and Hobbes talk about and they state that societies formed on its basis live under peace and liberty. Chapter 17 of Leviathan and Chapter 10 of Second Treatise On Civil Government bring out the aspect of individuals choosing the form of government that they find suitable. This argument lays the basis of democracy from both authors, which differs from Machiavelli’s book, Prince, which advocates for a dictatorial form of government by denying people liberty. However, it is important to note that Hobbes acknowledges that fear and liberty correspond to each other. He explains this by indicating how people fearfully commit themselves to certain act to ensure they retain their liberty (Hobbes 130). This indicates that people do not commit themselves to law out of self-will but out of desire of freedom. Locke also addresses how power should be distributed in the arm of the government. This helps in prevent one arm of the government from taking advantage of other because of too much power. Chapter 18 of the Second Treatise looks at leadership that is based on tyranny and how people under this rule are subjected torture by their leaders (Locke 65). He then shows how this state ends up becoming uncontrollable due to rebellion. The last chapter talks about dissolution of government. He points out that the society has the ability to judge and remove leaders if they fail to perform their duty. This brings in the aspect of democracy and how leaders are liable for what they do while in power. In chapter 17 to 19, Hobbes brings out the topic of democracy. He shows how monarch leaders who are elected by people are the best kind of leaders since they represent the people (Hobbes 103-122). These political thoughts brought forward by the three philosophers bring out the themes of statecraft and social contract. Machiavelli brings out the theme of statecraft, which indicates that the best form of government should be formed based on discretion or caution. In chapter 15 of The Prince, Machiavelli indicates that for a prince to be effective in leadership and eliminate the chances of losing his state has to practice both virtue and vice (Machiavelli 72-73). This concept of statecraft tries to indicate that leaders should practice kindness but they must consider harshness because that is the only way they can achieve glory. Locke and Hobbes talk about governments that fall under the context of social contact. Social contact is whereby individuals come together to form a community and in the process, they sacrifice their freedom for a common purpose that revolves around protection. Hobbes majors on social contract in chapter 18, where he states the laws and duties of both the sovereign state and its citizens. In regard to this, Hobbes shows that the sovereign power had more power and authority, and he uses this to maintain law and order to prevent miserable things from happening in the society. Locke’s form of social contract mainly lies onequality, where he argues “no-one has more power and authority than anyone else; because it is simply obvious that creatures of the same species and status” (Locke 3). This differs from Aristotle’s work where he sees slavery fit for the society. However, the need of a government comes in to maintain law and order, creating a social contract. Therefore, Hobbes state of social contract exists because he considered man to live in a state of nature that was harsh whereas, Locke’s social contract exists because security of belongings. The three philosophical thinkers had different conceptions of human nature. Machiavelli’s views on human nature were contributed mainly by his view on how people were supposed to be governed. In Chapter 6, he states that human beings are hard to control when he indicated 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”. He later on indicates that force was the only way that could make people submit to rule. Machiavelli and Hobbes have the same perspectives when it comes to human nature. In chapter 10, Machiavelli shows how people are self-considerate when he says “If the people have property outside the city, and see it burnt, they will not remain patient, and the long siege and self-interest will make them forget their prince;..”. Machiavelli notes that if people are granted the sense of liberty or freedom, they might rebel or revolt against the authority in power. Machiavelli also notes that human beings do not have the ability of managing or governing themselves (Machiavelli 21). Therefore, they need an authority in order to guide them. This shows that Machiavelli did not see human nature being governable except if a leader was present. Leviathan from a general perspective greatly talks about the human nature by indicating the areas that is greatly faces challenges. In chapter 11, Hobbes mentions “I put for a general inclination of all mankind a perpetual and restless desire of power after power that ceaseth only in death” (Hobbes 61). Hobbes acknowledges that self-interest is something that human beings have naturally and he identifies it as an endeavor. This endeavor makes people perceive things that will satisfy their appetite and desires (Hobbes 32). According to him, this attributes of desire and appetite drive men towards satisfying their own needs, which makes them, become selfish. He continues to show how certain objects intrigue human pleasure and desires and how they make individuals act in different ways. In Chapter 13 Hobbes brings out the topic of self-interest and how it is the core factor in human nature. He states “If any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies; and in the way to their end…..endeavor to destroy or subdue one another” (Hobbes 36). He indicates that this leaves man solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short, and urges people to submit themselves to an authority so to maintain order. It is important to note that the philosophical work of Hobbes agrees with that of Locke when he indicates that all men are equal (Hobbes 76). However, Hobbes notes that this equality is all but in vain because some men consider themselves to have greater power than other. This two accounts of human nature indicated by Machiavelli and Hobbes show that the self-interest can be rectified by the use of a great authority. Aristotle’s work also indicates that human nature is full of greed and selfishness. Locke’s description of human nature differs from that of Machiavelli’s and Hobbes’. He states that everyone is equal in the society because. He states “no-one being subjected to or subordinate to anyone else, unless God….were to declare …that some one person be raised above the others and given an undoubted right to dominion and sovereignty” (Locke 3). This statement makes his ideologies differ from that of Machiavelli and Hobbes because this is an indication that man does not require higher authority in order to be controlled. He further argues that man is a social animal that lives by liberty without rule from men but instead rules by the law of nature. In regards to this, he states that man does what is best fit to him without interfering others. Locke continues to point out that human nature makes up responsibility for everyone and gives reason that is law. He indicates that law helps in making everybody become of the equal status and free, therefore, no one has the right to interfere with another person’s wellbeing (Locke 4). It is important to indicate that, Locke believed that man through the state of nature had the power to govern and protect himself and punish the lawbreakers. This indicates that Locke did not find human nature full of greed or self-interest and unable to govern and control compared to how Machiavelli and Hobbes found it. However, it is important to note that even though Locke did not advocate for a government, he only saw its essence in ensuring laws were followed by the people. In conclusion, the philosophical works of Machiavelli, Hobbes, and Locke all give an account of the type of political rule they find best fit and effective to the society in the modern world. They also bring out the topic of human nature in order to show how it plays a major factor by contributing to how human beings behave in the society and bringing in concepts that differ from Aristotle’s political view. Works Cited Locke, John. Second Treatise Of Government. Some Good Press, 2015. Print. Machiavelli, J. The Prince written 1505, published 1515, translated by W.K. Marriott. Sterling Publishing Company, Inc. Print. Thomas, Hobbes. Leviathan, or The Matter, Form and Power of a Common Wealth Ecclesiastical and Civil. The English Works of Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury, London (1904): 1839-45. Read More