In a state of nature, each man, as the possessor of reason and free will, is cognitively independent and equal, and so, by implication, politically independent and equal (Braman 07). Locke knew that men were there own learning tools within themselves. Not only did they learn from there mistakes, which was known for centuries, but, they also grew from one another and took what they needed for there own well mental development (Braman 09) Just like mankind has been doing for as long as anyone can remember, they have been working there owns ways of life out for themselves and to learn from one another and not from someone or something telling you how you should be living.
Throughout many centuries, different philosophers have argued contrasting ideas on the nature of justice and on the role of government in society. These philosophers, Plato, Machiavelli, and Hobbes, have differing ideas regarding how a state or society should be governed, who should run the state, what the responsibilities of the leader/people are, and the ultimate purpose of the state. All three philosophers were writing in different eras, so they have they have different philosophies. During Plato's era, man based philosophy on utopian ideals and principles. The primary concern was with how things should be, not how they were. If humans were to all behave this way, it would result in a perfect society. However, Machiavelli was a realist, he was concerned about things now, not how things could be if the world was perfect.
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?
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
...ident in Chapter five. He writes, “But when cities or provinces have been accustomed to live under a prince and his line becomes extinct, being on the one hand used to obeying and on the other deprived of their leader, they cannot agree among themselves in the selection of a new one and do not know how to live in freedom.” (Machiavelli, page 29) 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. He also believes that leaders will eventually end up following other great leaders. Unlike Locke and Marx, Machiavelli believes that 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 it further supports his argument that human beings are but simpleminded creatures.
John Locke is known as the “Father of Classical Liberalism” and is said to be one of the most influential philosophers. Locke believed that all humans are born with natural rights and had the right to protect their “Life, liberty, health and possessions”. Locke also believed that we have the right to overthrow our government if we didn’t like it or got tired of it and he wanted a limited
John Locke and Thomas Hobbes were both great political philosophers who influenced modern history. Thomas Hobbes was born in England in April of 1588. He is well known for his book Leviathan and for his views on politics and society. He fled to Paris in the late 1640s leaving England because of hard times. The civil war was occurring at that time. According to Stewart Duncan, “Hobbes was associated with the royalist side, and might also have had reason to fear punishment because of his defense of absolute sovereignty in his political philosophy” (Duncan, 2009). John Locke was born August of 1632 in England. Locke is well known for his Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Locke lived during the conflict between Crown and Parliament and the overlapping conflicts between Protestants, Anglicans and Catholic into the civil war in the sixteenth hundreds (Uzgalis, 2001). Views on how people are governed & willing to accept. Their thought influencing today’s political thinking (Conclusion). Locke and Hobbes were both political philosophers who explored what humankind would be like in a s...
Using examples from The Second Treatise of Government explain some of the reasons that John Locke is regarded as “father of Classical Liberalism “
Throughout history, there has been abundant ways in where philosophers try to change people’s perspective on certain topics. One of the well known men was John Locke; he was an English philosopher (1632-1704) who had different positive views regarding human nature. In addition, Locke strongly believed in natural rights of life, liberty, & property, and thought that all humans are all the same and that we are all born free, to do what we all desire without having to ask for permission to anyone, and also equal which meant that no none is to have no natural or political authority over one another. Thus, Locke believes that we are all born with three natural rights. He also held the belief that government has a moral obligation to guarantee
Locke’s viewpoint towards human nature is more optimistic and positive as it highlights the individual as he views humans as being rational and with reason. He believes that humans are bound by natural laws that keep each other from harming one another. Thus, no human is better or higher in status than another and are equal thus attaining perfect freedom as all men are created equally. Humans are by nature born free as Locke states that “man being born, as has been proved, with a title to perfect freedom” and also with “an uncontrolled enjoyment of all the rights and privileges of the law of nature, equally with any other man” has the power to preserve his “property, life, liberty and estate” (Locke, Section 87). Locke believes in the state of nature that “has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions” (Lock...
Among the three, Machiavelli takes a unique position, writing from a purely secular point of view. Throughout his book The Prince, he champions human ability, describing how a would-be conqueror can use his skills, talents, and cunning to gain and keep power. Since each chapter in the book focuses almost exclusively on strategies and qualities that aspiring princes should use and develop, it is obvious that Machiavelli believes that human will, used carefully, is powerful enough to conquer something as significant as an empire. In Machiavelli’s view, no higher power—whether it be fate or God—has complete control over who governs. His shrewd, analytical, and completely irreligious point of view was actually rather radical for his time, since many people still believed in the divine right of kings.
In order to examine how each thinker views man and the freedom he should have in a political society, it is necessary to define freedom or liberty from each philosopher’s perspective. John Locke states his belief that all men exist in "a state of perfect freedom to order their actions and dispose of their possessions and person as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other man." (Ebenstein 373) Locke believes that man exists in a state of nature and thus exists in a state of uncontrollable liberty, which has only the law of nature, or reason, to restrict it. (Ebenstein 374) However, Locke does state that man does not have the license to destroy himself or any other creature in his possession unless a legitimate purpose requires it. Locke emphasizes the ability and opportunity to own and profit from property as necessary for being free.
Often, philosophers have tried to define civil society and its interaction with other facets of society. Ancient philosophers have approached civil society by defining it as how they think it should exist; by setting lofty ideals on how people should live their lives to achieve a perfect civil society. On the other hand, philosophers such as Niccolo Machiavelli and
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.
1. First of all, John Locke reminds the reader from where the right of political power comes from. He expands the idea by saying, “we must consider what estate all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit.” Locke believes in equality among all people. Since every creature on earth was created by God, no one has advantages over another. He makes a strong suggestion by saying, “that creatures of the same species and rank, should also be equal one amongst another, without subordination or subjection, unless the lord and master of them all should, by any manifest declaration of his will, set one above another, and confer on him, by an evident and clear appointment, an undoubted right to dominion and sovereignty.” For people to confirm the state of Nature, a law is set that obliges people to follow and consult it. The Law of Nature brings many things that need to be followed by each person. Locke describes the law’s consequences if not obeyed by saying, “the execution of the law of Nature is in that state put into every man’s hands, whereby every one has a right to punish the transgressors of that law to such a degree as may hinder its violation.” Every law is fair and equal to every person. As you have equal rights, you may also be punished equally if you don’t obey it.