Human reason has not always been a presence in our daily lives. Doing the right thing, being ethical, and making educated decisions, one would think, are the ideal principles behind human nature. Sadly, only in more recent times has human reason shed its good grace on more modern societies. For many centuries, constant war and the reconstruction to nations, countries, and empires led to the rise and fall of many different leaders and in tow their governments. Within such societies, political spokesmen like Machiavelli, Locke, and Marx, interpret their ideas to the people, which still remain significant to this day. One of their main focuses was to raise awareness, on their ideas on trust and human reason. While Locke and Marx urge us to have faith in human reason, as a positive means to society, Machiavelli would claim the contrary. The concept of human nature and reason to both John Locke and Karl Marx juxtaposes that of Machiavelli’s, and their notions derive from their different eras, economies, environments, and strict governments, which ultimately shaped their ideologies on human nature. Machiavelli does not trust nor believe in human reason. He was sarcastic and satirical towards the very thought of human reason, which allows us to interpret that he was mocking the people of his time. In The Prince, Machiavelli expressed what the ideal Prince should embody, what he should do in times of war, what he should do for the economy daily, and how to rule in times of peace as well. Human nature to him however, is described as, rude, pessimistic, and shallow. Machiavelli makes it evidently clear that, “Men are much more taken by present than by past things, and when they find themselves well-off in the present, they enjoy it and see... ... middle of paper ... ...ciety must trust in human nature because it required a collective effort from everyone in the economy. Marx urged that a collective effort be the engine behind a motivated Communist nation, which in turn implied, that human nature and reason must coincide with society. While Machiavelli may not agree with Marx and Locke regarding human nature, their ideas evolved from their surrounding environments and economies. Marx and Locke advocated that human nature is enveloped in a thriving society. This provided us with valuable insight on the rights of man in pre-Capitalist societies, because equality is the main pillar supporting weight of human reason. Machiavelli argued that men are selfish and do not seek to help those in need, and would rather collect the propriety from a deceased father than mourn his passing. His satire suggests that human nature is not possible.
...e driven into civil society by their contentious natures. As such, all three have the need for an organizing and directing influence in society to ensure that it accomplishes the ends for which it exists. For Machiavelli and for Locke, this influence comes directly from the government. For Mill, this influence comes from within society, the associations one forms with other people; however it requires a certain minimal support from the government to keep it on the proper track. This influence is morality, and it is an extension of human nature.
Dante and Machiavelli were both writers who felt that society and leaders were greatly mislead in their approach of operating the state. Yet even they had very contrasting beliefs in their view of what was ideal for a society to function properly. Machiavelli judges religious or political leaders is based there’s ability to maintain order and unity, regardless of whether one or not need these leaders put there morality and ethics aside for this greater benefit of one’s state. This differs greatly from Dante because his evaluation of the leaders of his time is based solely on how true they stay to moral and ethical virtues. He judges the political. Their ideas of human excellence are revealed through these judgments are very different. While Dante idea of human excellence lies merely on morality and achieving unity with God, Machiavelli put more emphasis on practicality which is necessary for the greater good of the state and how to be an effective politician.
Machiavelli’s views on human nature are unjust; nevertheless, his philosophy, or rather instructions, is reasonable in capturing the selfishness of men. As written in The Qualities of the Prince by Machiavelli, “Men are ungrateful, fickle, simulators and deceivers, avoiders of danger, greedy for gain; and while you work for their good they are completely yours, offering you their blood, their property, their lives, and their sons… when danger is far away; but when it comes nearer to you they turn away.'; Machiavelli’s generalization demonstrates his low opinion on the nature of men because he views them as selfish and lacking in both loyalty and honesty.
There is no easy solution to our moral quandrums (another much discussed idea in the Discourses. Machiavelli’s daring, his awareness of unadorned reality, his honesty and anti-hypocrisy, his republican commitment can help us, if we are able to grasp the essence of his politics and his ethics, also in this very complex and problematic stage of human development.
Locke and Marx put their trust in human reason while Machiavelli does not. These authors’ assumptions and different conceptions of human nature determine and lead to each of their conclusions regarding human nature. This paper will argue that Locke views human nature in a positive manner where humans are rational and reasonable. This paper will also argue that Marx denies the existence of human nature and instead concludes that social relations and society ultimately defines humans. Finally, this paper will argue that Machiavelli, unlike the other authors, has a negative understanding of humans as he thinks that man is selfish and that an individual should not be given too much power as they only act upon their own self-interest.
Moreover, Ernst Cassirer sees Machiavelli’s work as tussle between “facts” and the “values” (Nederman 2005). In other words, Ernst Cassirer claims that the belief system is not ought to be the truth system more so considering the fact that political dynamics and morals are
Machiavelli’s views were drastically different from other humanists at his time. He strongly promoted a secular society and felt morality was not necessary but stood in the way of a successfully governed state. He stated that people generally tended to work for their own best interests and gave little thought to the well being of the state. He distrusted citizens saying, “In time of adversity, when a state is in need of its citizens, there are few to be found.” In his writings in The Prince, he constantly questioned the citizens’ loyalty and warned for the leaders to be wary in trusting citizens. His radical and distrusting thoughts on human nature were derived out of concern for Italy’s then unstable government. Machiavelli also had a s...
Machiavelli believes that a government should be very structured, controlled, and powerful. He makes it known that the only priorities of a prince are war, the institutions, and discipline. His writings describes how it is more important for a prince to be practical than moral. This is shown where he writes, "in order to maintain the state he is often obliged to act against his promise, against charity, against humanity, and against religion" (47). In addition, Machiavelli argues that a prince may have to be cunning and deceitful in order to maintain political power. He takes the stance that it is better for the prince to be feared than loved. His view of how a government should run and his unethical conduct are both early signs of dictatorship.
In The Prince, Machiavelli separates ethics from politics. His approach to politics, as outlined in The Prince, is strictly practical. Machiavelli is less concerned with what is right and just, and instead with what will lead to the fortification of the government and the sustainment of power. Machiavelli believed that a ruler should use any means necessary to obtain and sustain power. He says, “…people judge by outcome. So if a ruler wins wars and holds onto power, the means he has employed will always be judged honorable, and everyone will praise them” (Machiavelli, 55). According to Machiavelli, the ends of an action justify the means (Machiavelli, 55). His motivation for these views in The Prince was the reunification of the Italian city-states (Machiavelli, 78-79). Machiavelli wanted Italy to return to its glory of the Roman Empire (Machiavelli 78-79). Some of the beliefs of Machiavelli could be perceived as evil and cruel, but he found them necessary. Machiavelli was not concerned with making people happy. His purpose was outcome and success, and in his opinion, the only way to be successful was to be realistic. These views of Machiavelli could classify him as one of the earliest modern
As he begins to conclude, Machiavelli states that the prince: “should think about avoiding those things which make him hated and despised.” (Mach 48) Although these lack any withstanding moral values, they are effective in the sense that they better serve their purpose. Machiavelli was seeking to display a way to hold political power by any means possible not a utopian state. This may mean malicious acts, imprisonment, and torture, or it may mean the utilization of power to achieve a common good. Machiavelli doesn’t elaborate on this. He concentrates on a realistic approach towards government, as he remains concerned with the establishment and protection of power.
Machiavelli believed that, ethics and morality were considered in other categories than those generally known. He does not deny the existence of, but did not see how they can be useful in its traditional sense as in politics and in the government of the people. According to Machiavelli, a man is by nature a political angry and fearful. Machiavelli had no high opinion of the people. It is assumed that a person is forced to be good and can get into the number of positive features, such as prudence and courage. The prince can only proceed gently and with love, because that would undermine the naivety of his rule, and hence and the well-being of the state. He thought that, the Lord must act morally as far as possible, immorally to the extent to
(652) and those who do realize what the Prince is, dare not tell, for the Prince has the power of the masses to protect him. Machiavelli, in a sense, describes how to live, successfully and prosperously, by dealing with the human?s nature. He details how one is to manipulate
Machiavelli showed the weakness in human nature. Humans were born ungrateful, fickle and eager to avoid danger. The princes should disregard the reproach of cruelty to keep his subjects loyalty and faithful to him, rather than abusing his mercy. “For men will sooner forget the death of their father than the loss of their patrimony”(20). While people were conferred with benefits, they are willing to sacrifice for others, but people would betray others when truly needed. The so-called homage and faithfulness were merely the protection of self-interest and cover of avarice inward.
In The Prince, Machiavelli attempts to completely decouple the actions of a good ruler from personal ethics. Machiavelli begins to do this by first establishing what he believes human nature to be Machiavelli argues that numerous traits that are innate among humans. Among these, Machiavelli argues that people are generally self-interested, but that their affections for others can be won and lost. They tend to remain happy so long they avoid affliction or oppression. He also argues that they might be trustworthy in prosperous times, but they can turn selfish, deceitful, and profit-driven in adverse times. They admire honor, generosity, courage, and piety in others, but most do not pursue these virtues in their own life. Finally, Machiavelli argues that ambition is found in those who have achieved some power, but most common people are satisfied with the way things are and therefore do not yearn to improve on the status quo. People will naturally feel obligated after receiving a favor or service, and this bond is usually not broken capriciously. Nevertheless, loyalties are won and lost, and goodwil...
As human beings, the author says we are like other creatures on earth that are governed by laws of gravity, or certain biological laws that govern things on this earth; we have no choice but to obey. There is, though, one law that we can choose to obey or not. It is a law that we call the law of human decent behavior. It doesn't matter what part of the world we live in, Dr. Lewis says, people differ very little when it comes to right and wrong as related to the law of human decent behavior. We do not always take it into consideration when we should be doing it to other people; nonetheless, we recognize indecent behavior when we are expecting it and do not receive it. There are two things, the author points out, that all human beings all over the earth have in common: (1) this idea that they are to behave in a certain way, and they cannot really get rid of it; and (2) they do not in fact behave in that way — they know the law of nature and they break it.