Machiavelli's Second Treatise Of Government

737 Words2 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Machiavelli the prince and leadership

*INSERT TITLE* Throughout generations, philosophers have consistently analyzed the extent of power and the most effective ways to keep it. Through this paper I will be discussing the disparities between Machiavelli and Locke’s interpretation of what the scope of power entails and the best ways to ensure that power is never taken. In Machiavelli’s, The Prince, he established an outline for princes to follow in order to secure political dominance and assure that his kingdom is protected against attack. In John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government he argues that sovereignty lies in the hands of the people, shifting from specific roles of princes discussed by Machiavelli to limited functions of government that should be in place to preserve the …show more content…

He begins by setting rules on how a prince can be successful and effective. I’m sure many people during his time have asked him how he knows the ingredients of being successful, and he answers them by saying that as an observer, he is able to see the entire picture rather than only what is in front, or what princes may see. He doesn’t directly state that human beings are evil, but rather he believes that people are very simple minded and that their obedience to a ruler only depends on whether they are harmed or not. He debates, “there cannot be good laws where there are not good arms, and where there are good arms there must be good laws” (Machiavelli, 48) Meaning, that a ruler who is capable of raising and commanding a disciplined army must also be capable enough to keep his state well ordered, providing conditions that make for orderly life in society. Based on this quote, it seems Machiavelli leans more towards the government. Conveying that the government doesn’t necessarily have to be built by the people nor for the people, but rather for stability and harmony of the …show more content…

Locke believes in a more equal society where the government exists ultimately to serve the commonwealth, in contrast Machiavelli believes that humans are simpleminded creatures born to follow a strong leader by incorporating fear. Machiavelli’s true intentions seem to become more evident in chapter five. He writes, “But when cities or provinces have been accustomed to live under a prince, and his bloodline is eliminated- since on the one hand they are used to obeying, and on the other they do not have the old prince- they will not agree to make one among themselves and they do not know how to live free” (Machiavelli, 21). He explicitly states that humans are mostly followers and would not be able to carry on with their lives unless someone instructs them how to do so and leaders will eventually end up following other great leaders. Unlike Locke, Machiavelli believes establishing a new government is too difficult to plan and more dangerous to manage, which conveys a message that he is somewhat satisfied with a monarchy, and further supports his argument that human beings are but simple-minded creatures unable to create such an intricate form of government. Based on these ideologies, Machiavelli has placed responsibility of

Show More
Related

  • Comparing Morality in The Prince, Second Treatise of Government, and Utilitarianism

    2060 Words  | 5 Pages

    Niccolo Machiavelli, John Locke, and John Stuart Mill present three distinct models of government in their works The Prince, Second Treatise of Government, and Utilitarianism. From an examination of these models it is possible to infer their views about human nature and its connection to the purpose of government. A key to comparing these views can be found in an examination of their ideas of morality as an intermediary between government and human nature. Whether this morality must be inferred from their writings or whether it is explicitly mentioned, it differs among the three in its definition, source, and purpose.

    Read More

  • Plato vs. Machiavelli

    1692 Words  | 4 Pages

    A longstanding debate in human history is what to do with power and what is the best way to rule. Who should have power, how should one rule, and what its purpose should government serve have always been questions at the fore in civilization, and more than once have sparked controversy and conflict. The essential elements of rule have placed the human need for order and structure against the human desire for freedom, and compromising between the two has never been easy. It is a question that is still considered and argued to this day. However, the argument has not rested solely with military powers or politicians, but philosophers as well. Two prominent voices in this debate are Plato and Machiavelli, both of whom had very different ideas of government's role in the lives of its people. For Plato, the essential service of government is to allow its citizens to live in their proper places and to do the things that they are best at. In short, Plato's government reinforces the need for order while giving the illusion of freedom. On the other hand, Machiavelli proposes that government's primary concern is to remain intact, thereby preserving stability for the people who live under it. The feature that both philosophers share is that they attempt to compromise between stability and freedom, and in the process admit that neither can be totally had.

    Read More

  • Machiavelli and Rousseau's Views on Human Nature and Government

    558 Words  | 2 Pages

    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...

    Read More

  • Machiavelli vs. Lao-Tzu

    284 Words  | 1 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Comparing Machiavelli’s Principles and the Ten Commandments

    714 Words  | 2 Pages

    Machiavelli is undisputedly one of the most influential political philosophers of all time. In The Prince, his most well-known work, he relates clearly and precisely how a decisive, intelligent man can gain and maintain power in a region. This work is revolutionary because it flies in the face of the Christian morality which let the Roman Catholic Church hold onto Europe for centuries. Machiavelli's work not only ignores the medieval world's ethics: The Prince suggests actions which oppose the four most basic of Christianity's Ten Commandments.

    Read More

  • Machiavelli's The Prince: Still Relevant after All These Years

    2155 Words  | 5 Pages

    Written almost 500 years ago, Niccolo Machiavelli’s “The Prince” brings forward a new definition of virtue. Machiavelli’s definition argued against the concept brought forward by the Catholic Church. Machiavelli did not impose any thoughts of his own, rather he wrote from his experience and whatever philosophy that lead to actions which essentially produced effective outcomes in the political scene of Italy and in other countries. While Machiavelli is still criticized for his notions, the truth is that, consciously or subconsciously we are all thinking for our own benefit and going at length to achieve it. On matters of power where there is much to gain and a lot more to lose, the concept of Machiavelli’s virtue of “doing what needs to be done” applies rigorously to our modern politics and thus “The Prince” still serves as a suitable political treatise in the 21st century.

    Read More

  • Erasmus Vs Machiavelli

    876 Words  | 2 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • Machiavelli's Ideas Essay

    1060 Words  | 3 Pages

    Machiavelli’s The Prince was written more than 500 years ago and it is “one of the most influential and controversial books published in Western literature.” (Article A) It was about Machiavelli’s political philosophies and the basic principles of what he believes a politician or “prince” should be. The three main ideas of the Prince were “Liberality and Stinginess”, “Cruelty and Mercy: Is It Better to Be Loved Than Feared, or the Reverse?”, and “How a Prince Should Keep Their Promises” and for the most part many of his concepts should or are already instilled in our government.

    Read More

  • The Prince Controversy

    1883 Words  | 4 Pages

    Additionally, The Prince states that secular forms of government are more realistic than pious ones because a pious government would be bound by morals. In the Prince, Machiavelli tries to convey that the end justifies the means, which means any thing goes. He claims that it would be ideal for a prince to possess all the qualities that are deemed good by other men, but states that no leader can accomplish that. He also states that the security of the state should be the prince’s first priority and it must be protected by any means necessary. Although, this can be true in certain cases, Machiavelli uses it as an excuse to use evil and cruel tactics.

    Read More

  • Machiavelli's The Prince As A Republican Form Of Government

    918 Words  | 2 Pages

    In a work written by Machiavelli called The Prince, there are many ideas he believes should be part of a government. The United States today is a Federal Republic. This means that it is a “federation of states that have a republican form of government”. Being a republican government means that the power of the country lies with the people and their elected representatives. This essay will be tackling the topic of whether or not the ideas that Machiavelli stated should or should not be implemented into our own system of government today.

    Read More

  • The Tao-te Ching by Lao-Tzu and The Prince by Machiavelli

    1754 Words  | 4 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Compare And Contrast John Locke And Machiavelli

    1447 Words  | 3 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • Niccolo Machiavelli's The Prince: A Guide to Being an Effective Ruler

    1042 Words  | 3 Pages

    ...ch route to take on his way to power, keeping his rule, and how to maintain his military. The ultimate goal for a Prince is to maintain his position and reign, and a Prince can cheat, steal, and lie in order to accomplish that goal. Machiavelli seems to favor a Principality over Republics in this case because a Prince will be safer in a hereditary Principality due to the subjects being more accustomed to the blood of the Prince. Machiavelli’s straightforward advice on the art of warfare is to use your own military and that a Prince should always study the art of war. The ideal situation between a Prince and his subjects is to be feared rather loved, so that there is order. There is a difference between being feared and hated, and as long as the Prince doesn’t take a subjects property, women, or execute a subject without a proper cause.

    Read More

  • Comparing Thomas Hobbes and Niccolo Machiavelli

    2258 Words  | 5 Pages

    ...be loyal subjects, bowing before the state. They should love the state more than their very souls, and serve it to their dying days. In Machiavelli?s model, the people were there to carry out the wishes of the state, and to try not to injure themselves in the process. People are also important to make up the military, which is the ultimate strength of the state.

    Read More

  • Human Nature In Plato's The Prince By Niccolo Machiavelli

    1365 Words  | 3 Pages

    Machiavelli’s advice to princes directly correlated to his view on human nature. He believed that every common man was born evil and selfish. That did not stop him, however, from saying that humans many show instances when they exhibit generosity and wholeheartedness. He does tell princes, however, not to count on the few occurrences that may happen, and he says, “It is necessary to be a prince to know thoroughly the nature of the people, and one of the populace to know the nature of princes”. He is saying is that it is imperative that a prince knows the natural human nature, that each and every human will become more self-interested than interested in the good of the state. If he is ignorant to that fact, his kingdom/area of rule will deteriorate simply because he believes in the citizens that occupy it. He does believe, however, that with the right training, a human being can be molded (with the help of the state, of course) and he says, “Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many.” Although he believes that people cannot change themselves for the good, he does think that the state and military can shape humans for the better, but there will always be

    Read More

More about Machiavelli's Second Treatise Of Government

Open Document