In Chapter 4 of Political Thinking; the Perennial Questions, Tinder raises the question of whether social order can be maintained without power. The argument of whether humans are estranged or naturally good plays a large part in deciding this question. Tinder hits on two major topics before coming to his ultimate decision. The first is that human nature can be linked to reason as both a cognitive and a moral tool that can be used to live without a specific source of power. In other words, people with a strong sense of morality can suffice without the need of an organized government. It is then argued that the concept of natural occurring interests between a society successfully taps into the fear that social order is spontaneous, disregarding whether people are generally good or bad. The example of free enterprise is given, regarding humans as selfish and materialistic. With this an idea for government to protect property and create stability in currency arose while trying not to encroach on personal freedoms.
Taking the spontaneous route, many political thinkers believe that if given a chance to develop peacefully, a society will build up an complex structure of traditional practices and beliefs. This will create the most wisdom throughout a system since it is based on ideas that have been passed down through generations to be practiced and perfected. Tinder then gives three major sources of spontaneous order as contrasted with humanly manufactured, and power-centered order. The first is anarchism, or the belief that humans can get along without power. Anarchists thrive on the belief that humans are naturally good, and that if following natural forces, and laws created though habit and custom, can live harmoniously without gov...
... middle of paper ...
...chy. His desire for order is not universally definite, but depends on circumstance of those and their need to be governed. His ideology in regards to combining the best of the best forms of government is relatable to Aristotle's idea of politeia and combining both democracy and oligarchy to the best government. Machiavelli's ideas are still held evident today especially in the arena of economics. His question of whether it is better to be feared than loved is a common question tied back to economists in regards to research about happiness. In this same regards, economists often use Machiavelli's argument of “the end justifies the means”, although the end never becomes answered by modern day economists. Machiavelli is rightfully known as one of the founders of modern political science creating ideals that are universal and continue to be evident as time progresses.
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.
Thomas Paine begins his article by first exploring the differences between society and government. He explains that, “society in every state is a blessing, but government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil.” (Frohnen 179) What he means by this is that to have society and community is a privilege, because we as humans are designed to have a need for human interaction, while government on the other hand is only a necessary evil, simply because we as humans are also designed to be inherently evil, and therefore government is a necessary evil to have in order to monitor wrongdoing, or to keep us from our own vices in other words. This emphasizes the Classical Christian Anthropological principle of duality, which is the inner struggle that we as humans have between amor sui, the love of self, and amor dei, the love of God. This struggle springs from the fact that evil is found within man, and we must mak...
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.
Niccolo Machiavelli lived in Florence, Italy in the 1400’s. The country of Italy was divided into city-states that had their own leaders, but all pledged alliance to their king. In time in which great leaders were needed in order to help the development of a city-state and country, Machiavelli had a theory that man needed a leader to control them. In his book The Prince, he speaks of the perfect leader.
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.
Ayn Rand's classic story of one man's desire to become an individual in a nameless society presents a compelling refutation of collectivism in all forms. The hero, labeled "Equality 7-2521" by the State, chooses to challenge conventional authority as he learns the joys of experimentation and discovery, the ecstasy of human love, the challenge and fairness of liberty, and the happiness of self-interest. Equality 7-2521 writes three unique phrases in his journal: 1. "My happiness needs no higher aim to vindicate it. My happiness is not the means to an end. It is the end.", 2. "We know that we are evil, but there is no will in us and no power to resist it.", 3. "The word 'We' . . . must never be placed first within man's soul.". These phrases will be discussed individually in the remainder of this essay.
Through this examination of ideas, a conclusion may be made concerning the ideal form of government to preside over society today. In his famous writing, “The Leviathan”, Thomas Hobbes explains that the natural condition of mankind is when a society lives together without the rule of a common authority or power; this creates a “dog-eat-dog” world in which the citizens live in a perpetual state of utter chaos and fear. The fears experienced by the citizens are not only of the unequal distribution of the power of others, but also fear of the loss of their own power. In Hobbes’ state of nature there is complete liberty for society in the idea that each member may do whatever he or she pleases without having to worry about infringing upon the rights of the rest of society; in other words, one is allowed to do whatever necessary to pursue their own happiness. However, there is no guarantee of safety and protection from that same power which is granted to every other member of society.... ...
For all of Machiavelli’s ruthlessness and espousal of deceit, he knew the value of authenticity and relying on his administration. A true leader cannot achieve greatness alone. Machiavelli says that the prince is the state, and the state is the prince. This means that whatever vision and principles the leader holds in the highest regard, they must be known to the state so that they can be realized. He believed that no matter how a prince was elected, his success would depend largely on his ministers. Collaboration between a prince and ministers would create an atmosphere of harmony and camaraderie, highly reducing the chances of rebellion. Without the support and cooperation of the people, military action is not possible, expansion is not possible and most importantly, governance is not possible. If a leader does not satisfy the needs of the people, they have the power to overthrow him through strength in numbers. Thus, a leader depends just as much on the people as they do on him. A leader must be able to convince the people to buy into his visio...
Some may take this to mean a completely different thing, such as thinking that Machiavelli believes that the end justifies the means, that a leader should lie to the people, and that a ruler has to rule with force. In actuality, Machiavelli means no such thing. He says that there are times when the common good outweighs the means, and the morality of a ruler’s actions. He also says that you cannot be loved by everyone, so try to be loved and feared at the same time, but of the two, choose to be feared.
One might argue that it is only logical that man would create a system where their rights and property are being protected. Since man’s first desire is self-preservation, wouldn’t it be in man’s best interest, and hence, a natural culmination, that governments are established to maintain a peaceful way of life? Nevertheless, politics and the government are man-made concepts. There is no authority that exists naturally in the environment as all men share natural rights to self-preservation.
A logical starting point in an investigation of legitimate government would seem to be an account of the original purpose of government. Problems arise, though, in discovering this original purpose; any and all attempts seem to consist of mere speculation. Government is a social convention created by man.* It is doubtful whether or not there can ever be an empirically accurate account of the creation of government. Without this crucial information, a search for the original purpose of government appears futile. I had once thought that an account of human nature may provide insight into this enigma; I now believe that it is equally doubtful that there can be a true account of human nature. So where does this leave the political theorist?
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
...at having order or freedom alone brings along many conflicts and disagreements within society. Therefore it is believed that neither should be fully implied, hence in order to promote a healthy society, a basic equilibrium between the two should be present.
In Kelley, Machiavelli briefly mentions the books of Titus Livius, which gives him the opportunity to express his own views on the government of the state. Machiavelli's model republic was that of the Roman commonwealth, the most successful and enduring example of popular government. He acknowledges three kinds of government, the monarchial, the aristocratic, and the democratic. He then goes on to mention that there are six kinds of government, three of which are bad, and three good in themselves. However, he believes the three bad government will result in the fall of the good. Machiavelli constantly reminds us of his preference towards a republican form of government and his admiration for the Roman Empire. He insists on establishing a government with the political will ...
Human nature is not simply a measure of our human tendencies. It is both individual and collective. It does not explain why events happen. Instead, it explains the subconscious of each individual in the instant that events happen. The social order that best fits human nature is one where the informed opinions of everyone creates decisions and causes action. Madison’s argument for and against factions, Aristotle’s idea of ultimate happiness, and Locke’s concept of popular government and human rights all offer a significant component to the larger concept that is human nature. While some may argue that we will only fully understand human nature when we are met with death, still we can begin to capture a slight understanding to what governs human nature and the political order that helps it grow.