Compare And Contrast John Locke And Machiavelli

1447 Words3 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 …show more content…

Machiavelli focused more on the country 's political power, whereas John Locke focused more on the rights of the people. Is that true? I said they both had the same goal which was to look out for the best of the state, but Locke was a lot less extreme and focused more on his people rights. Despite their contradictions on "sovereignty", John Locke and Niccolo Machiavelli shared one conspicuous concern, and that is their concern for the betterment of society. It is plain to see that both philosophers did have common ways of thinking regarding what a ruler should and should not do. It is 'how ' a ruler should behave in order to win sovereignty of his state that led to a divergence in their opinions. Machiavelli and Locke both considered the nature of government and man 's individual interests as they relate to governmental structures. Machievelli 's idea of fortune and Locke 's 'state of nature ' concept both shaped the theorists arguments about the purpose of political life. It has been posited that for Machiavelli, politics is an unpredictable arena in which ambition, deception and violence render the idea of the common good meaningless, while Locke would argue that political or civil society exists only to preserve the rights of the individual. It can be argued that for both Machiavelli and Lock, political activity, then, becomes merely a means of satisfying selfish

Show More
Related

  • 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

  • Compare And Contrast Locke And Napoleon

    1289 Words  | 3 Pages

    John Locke, Rousseau, and Napoleon all have very different views on what would make a good society. Locke uses a democracy/republican type view that many countries still model after today. Locke’s view on a happy society is the most open and kind to its people, out of the three. Rousseau takes the complete opposite stance from Locke in thinking a more dictatorship government would be what is best for society as a whole as what is good for one person is good for one’s society. Napoleon plays by his own rules with telling people he will follow Lockean like views only to really want to be an absolutist government under his own power. However, all of their ideas would work for a given society so long as they had a set of laws in place and citizens

    Read More

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

    558 Words  | 2 Pages

    Machiavelli and Rousseau, both significant philosophers, had distinctive views on human nature and the relationship between the government and the governed. Their ideas were radical at the time and remain influential in government today. Their views on human nature and government had some common points and some ideas that differed.

    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

  • Comparing The Prince By Machiavelli And Utopia By Thomas More

    1377 Words  | 3 Pages

    It is difficult to determine Niccolo Machiavelli?s and Thomas More?s view on human?s nature. Each took a different approach to the topic. Through Utopia, Thomas More attempted to change man?s thinking by creating an ideological society. Niccolo Machiavelli, through The Prince, attempted to teach man how to deal with human nature. With this in mind, Machiavelli?s concept is much more realistic than More?s; therefore Machiavelli better represents human nature. Machiavelli?s view of human nature in The Prince, presents, on the surface, a view of governing a state drastically different for his time. Machaivelli believed that the ruling Prince should be the sole authority determining every aspect of the state and put into effect a policy which would serve his best interests. With this, Machiavelli uses the prince as man, and the state as the man?s life. These interests were gaining, maintaining, and expanding his political power. Though in some cases Machiavelli may seem harsh and immoral, one must remember that his views were derived from concern of Italy?s unstable political condition in the 1500s. Machiavelli seems to be teaching the common man how to live his life so that their life is good and prosperous. Machiavelli generally distrusted citizens, stating that ??since men are a sorry lot and will not keep their promises to you, you likewise need not keep yours to them? (Machiavelli 651). Furthermore, ? a prince never lacks legitimate reasons to break his promises? when, ?such an observance of faith would be to his disadvantage; and when the reasons which made him promise are removed? (651). Machiavelli did not feel that a Prince should mistreat the citizens. This suggestion once again to serve the Prince?s best interests. If a Prince can not be both feared and loved, Machiavelli suggests, it would be better for him to be feared by the citizens within his own dogma. He makes the generalization that men are, ?? ungrateful, fickle, simulators and deceivers, avoiders of danger, greedy for gain; and while you work for their good they are yours? (649). He characterizes men as being self-centered and not willing to act in the best interest of the state,? and when it (danger) comes nearer to you they turn away? (649). Machiavelli reinforces the Prince?s need to be feared by stating: ??men are less hesitant about harming someone who makes himself loved than one who makes himself feared?

    Read More

  • George Bush as a Machiavellian Leader

    1442 Words  | 3 Pages

    The most astounding aspect of The Prince is Machiavelli’s view that princes may indeed, be cruel and dishonest if their ultimate aim is for the good of the state. It is not only acceptable but necessary to lie, to use torture, and to walk over other states and cities. Machiavellianism is defined as “A political doctrine of Machiavelli, which denies the relevance of morality in political affairs and holds that craft and deceit are justified in pursuing and maintaining political power (Def.)” This implies that in the conquest for power, the ends justify the means. This is the basis of Machiavellianism. The priority for the power holder is to keep the security of the state regardless of the morality of the means. He accepts that these things are in and of themselves morally wrong, but he points out that the consequences of failure, the ruin of states and the destruction of cities, can be far worse. Machiavelli strongly emphasizes that princes should not hesitate to use immoral methods to achieve power, if power is necessary for security and survival.

    Read More

  • Humanist Ideals In Machiavelli's The Prince

    947 Words  | 2 Pages

    For instance, he states that “it is necessary for a prince, who wishes to maintain himself to learn how not to be good, and to use his knowledge and not use it, according to the necessity of the case” and that “he must not mind incurring the scandal of those vices without which it would be difficult to save the state” because “it will be found that some things which seems virtues would lead to one’s ruin” and some that seem to be vices result in greater security and wellbeing (Machiavelli, pg. 15). Machiavelli doesn't define virtue as other humanist might he believes that virtues are qualities that others praise, like generosity and honesty. He argues that a prince should

    Read More

  • Comparing Machiavelli and Hobbes

    1482 Words  | 3 Pages

    To be successful, one must have the appearance of virtuousness, but not necessarily be virtuous. At least, this appears to be true according to Niccolo Machiavelli's works. Machiavelli's idea of the virtuous republican citizen may be compared to Hobbes' idea of a person who properly understands the nature and basis of sovereign political power. Hobbes' ideas seem to suggest that most anyone can claim rightful authority as there is a belief in God, and one can under Hobbes, claim legitimate authority rather easily. There are few proofs. Machiavelli, on the other hand, takes a strong position and suggests specific criteria in terms of power. With Machiavelli, there is a sense of righteousness and fairness and while he does not sanction authoritarian rule to save man from himself, it is also true that Machiavelli puts a lot of faith in leaders also. In some respects, one can see that the two theorists agree yet Machiavelli’s proposed Political society is more feasible thus superior to that of Hobbes.

    Read More

  • Compare and Contrast Locke and Rousseau

    570 Words  | 2 Pages

    Rousseau and Locke differ slightly on how the question of sovereignty should be addressed. Rousseau believed that men would essentially destroy themselves due to their "mode of existence"(more explanation of what is meant by "mode of existence"?) (Rousseau 39) and therefore must enter into a government that controls them. However, this control is in the form of direct participation in democracy where people have the ability to address their opinions, and thus sovereignty is in the control of the people. Unlike Rousseau, Locke believed firmly in the fact that government should be split up into a legislative branch and a ruling branch, with the legislative branch being appointed as representatives of the people. He contends that people give up the power of their own rule to enter into a more powerful organization that protects life, liberties, property, and fortunes. The two differ significantlyin that Rousseau wanted a direct or absolute form of democracy controlled by the people, while Locke prefered an elected, representative democr...

    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

  • Comparative Analysis: Lao-tzu and Machiavelli on Governance

    1045 Words  | 3 Pages

    People all around have their own views on how a certain government should be run. We have so many different types of governments in different parts of the world and they for the most part run differently. Although each one runs differently, they each run according to that community and it works. Lao-tzu and Machiavelli have their own thoughts on what a government should be like and how it should be run.

    Read More

  • Compare And Contrast John Locke And The Social Contract

    1233 Words  | 3 Pages

    They both lived long lives and saw many things that influenced their philosophies. John Locke believed people have the ability to chose to be either good or evil. There will never be someone powerful enough to control every action that a person takes, even with power a person’s actions come down to the morals within a person and their ability to understand what actions are considered to be just. Thomas Hobbes will always have the philosophy of believing that people are born bad and no good will come upon a person in the state of nature without rules and a ruler. To some, this may be the way to keep a society in place, but others might disagree. What we know is that these two philosophies will live

    Read More

  • Compare And Contrast Locke And Socrates

    1169 Words  | 3 Pages

    John Locke and Socrates both have two distinctive and compelling arguments about what the social contract is. While government’s today extract ideas from both theories of the social contract, it’s is hard to determine which is the just and appropriate. While there is little comparison between the two theories other than fact that there must be a relationship between the government and the people for a society to exist, there are several opposing ideas in these arguments. First, the Socrates idea of an implicit social contract versus Locke’s explicit social contract. Secondly, Socrates believes laws make the society and in contrast, Locke believes society makes the law. Finally, Socrates believes the very few educated persons or minority

    Read More

  • Compare And Contrast Plato And Machiavelli

    947 Words  | 2 Pages

    Likewise, Plato’s philosopher king also uses the same concept but calls it “Justice” or “Good.” Similarly, to Machiavelli, who needs his Prince to have virtù to lead the people, Plato necessitates that his king use philosophical knowledge and emphasize justice to guide the unenlightened masses towards a just and stable society as well. When Socrates discusses the allegory of the cave, he remarks how when rulers must descend “to the general underground abode” where the masses “reside,” the ruler “will see a thousand times better than [the inhabitants of the cave]…because [the ruler has] seen the truth about things admirable and just and good” (Plato 520c). Plato believes that by seeing beyond the cave, and understanding the situation he exists in, the leader will have the appropriate ability to bring foresight and intelligence when making difficult decisions. While Plato’s and Machiavelli’s means of educating, changing and legitimizing political communities differ, the two philosophers share the same goal of using the benevolent dictators’ attained knowledge to lead the masses and their governments to prosperity and good fortune.

    Read More

  • Comparing Thomas Hobbes and Niccolo Machiavelli

    2258 Words  | 5 Pages

    Hobbes and Machiavelli both had revolutionary ideas about government and the essence of Man. Hobbes grew up in England, and had ideas concerning a freer type of government. His main work was ?Leviathan?. Machiavelli was raised in Italy, and had other ideas. Machiavelli focused on how a prince should act in governing his country. Machiavelli?s main work was entitled ?The Prince?. Ironically, neither Machiavelli nor Hobbes suggests a total democracy or a republic, like we use today. As much as Machiavelli and Hobbes are considered great philosophers, the modern government of the United States has proved to be the best.

    Read More

More about Compare And Contrast John Locke And Machiavelli

Open Document