Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Machiavelli's political theory
Machiavelli's political theory
Machiavelli views on government
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Is the purpose of government today, similar to that of philosophers of the past, or has there been a shift in political thought? This essay will argue that according to Machiavelli’s The Prince, the purpose of government is to ensure the stability of the state as well as the preservation of the established ruler’s control, and that the best form of government should take the form of an oligarchy. In contrast, in his book, Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes argues that the purpose of government should be to preserve the peace and security of men and, that the best form of government would be an absolute monarchy which would sanction such conditions. This essay will utilize themes of glory, material advantage, peace and stability to illustrate
In regards to glory, Machiavelli argues that, rulers should study the actions of admirable men. They should learn how to conduct themselves when at war, study why some battles were won and others lost, so they will know what to imitate or to avoid. In regards to such education, he states, “above all [the ruler] should set himself
…show more content…
To give little gifts is to dishonour, because it is but alms, and signifies an opinion of the need of small helps” (L 10, 21). He also says, “covetousness of great riches and ambition of great honours are honourable, as signs of power to obtain them” (L 10, 47). In society, in small groups it is common, “to rob and spoil one another has been a trade, and so far from being reputed against the law of nature that the greater spoils they gained, the greater their honour” (L 17, 2). This reinforces the need for security and defence of the people within the state. The purpose of the government is, “to defend them from invasion of foreigners and the injuries of one another, and thereby to secure them in such sort as that by their own industry” (L 17,
Machiavelli strongly believes that a prince should be involved in the military and understand all military matters. A prince must always be concentrated on war. Whether his country is at war or not, he must always be prepared. He must continuously be training, mentally and physically, and know the terrain around him. Machiavelli believes that a prince who does not attain these military related qualities will fail as a leader. In addition, during times of war, a successful prince should always question all outcomes of possible battles and prepare himself for the future by studying past wars. Studying the
Machiavelli divides all states into principalities and republics, principalities are governed by a solitary figure and republics are ruled by a group of people. With Hobbes’ Leviathan, a new model for governing a territory was introduced that can no longer be equally divided into Machiavelli's two state categories. Hobbes combines the concepts of governing principalities and republics into a new type of political thought that is similar to and different from Machiavelli. Hobbes, unlike Machiavelli, is on the side of the people and not the armed prophets. Hobbes believes that the function of society is not just merely living, but to have a safe and comfortable life.
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.
Forward thinking John Locke described the government’s purpose in his Second Treatise on government. To this great thinker, political power is “a right of making laws…only for the public good” (Locke). This idea of organization is key to liberty. Government is made to protect the rights of a free person, not to remove or tarnish them. Thus, it is the type...
To begin with, Machiavelli’s “The Prince” laid out the foundation of what absolute rulers should be. Machiavelli thought that princes should be well educated in war since he would then have the power to stop uprisings. “The quickest way to lose a state is to neglect this art [war]; the quickest way to get one is to study it. Thus a prince who knows noth...
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.... ...
The first concept which was “Liberality and Stinginess” has an underlying main idea that a Prince cannot be truly virtuous for “true virtue is not seen and has no
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.
But the good men did not remain good: they began to make money out of that which was the common property of all. And to some such development we may plausibly ascribe the origin of oligarchies, since men made wealth a thing of honour. The next change was to tyrannies, and from tyrannies to democracy. For the struggle to get rich at all costs tended to reduce numbers, and so increased the power of the multitude, who rose up and formed democracies. And now that there has been a further increase in the size of states, one might say that it is hard to avoid having a democratic constitution”
Aristotle, Locke, and Hobbes all place a great deal of importance on the state of nature and how it relates to the origin of political bodies. Each one, however, has a different conception of what a natural state is, and ultimately, this leads to a different conception of what a government should be, based on this natural state. Aristotle’s feelings on the natural state of man is much different than that of modern philosophers and leads to a construction of government in and of itself; government for Hobbes and Locke is a departure from the natural state of man.
Hobbes’ Leviathan and Locke’s Second Treatise of Government comprise critical works in the lexicon of political science theory. Both works expound on the origins and purpose of civil society and government. Hobbes’ and Locke’s writings center on the definition of the “state of nature” and the best means by which a society develops a systemic format from this beginning. The authors hold opposing views as to how man fits into the state of nature and the means by which a government should be formed and what type of government constitutes the best. This difference arises from different conceptions about human nature and “the state of nature”, a condition in which the human race finds itself prior to uniting into civil society. Hobbes’ Leviathan goes on to propose a system of power that rests with an absolute or omnipotent sovereign, while Locke, in his Treatise, provides for a government responsible to its citizenry with limitations on the ruler’s powers.
To understand the politics we have, we must look at two philosophers who have shaped the ideas and politics of this world. Niccolò Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes founded a new kind of political science that opposed the classical view of politics. Both of these men believed classical philosophy and Christianity focused on reaching imagined republics; these imagines republics were unreachable. Under these imagined republics men were held to high standards, men had to be virtuous; and men could not keep all the virtues because they lived in a world where men were not all good. Machiavelli’s book The Prince redefines virtue in order to allow rulers to keep their power; he lowered the standards of politics with this action. While Machiavelli’s writings meant to influence rulers, Hobbes’ book the Leviathan focused on appealing to the people. Hobbes placed political philosophy on a scientific basis; as a result human life was reduced to only self-preservation and commodious living. This essay will examine the innovations Machiavelli and Hobbes created especially with their views on virtue, necessity, and liberty.
Machiavelli supports education when advising a prince on how to best rule. He encourages a prince to train his mind. The honing of the prince’s intellect will make him a better military strategist. Machiavellis advises, “ As for exercising the mind, a prince should read history and reflect on the actions of great men.” The idea of studying history corresponds with the Renaissance value of obtaining knowledge from examples from antiquity. Machiavelli encourages princes to be educated through historical examples because he is convinced that a prince who is intelligent and bases his decisions on historical examples will be a strong and able prince. More also supports knowledge and education in Utopia. His zest for learning and education is evident throughout Utopia. In Book I of Utopia, the character More, argues that an educated and intelligent individual is the best advisor to a king. He suggests that Raphael would be a worthy counselor to a king due to his intelligence and education. He tells Raphael, “ Your learning is so full, even if it weren’t combined with experience, and your experience is so great, even apart from your learning, that you would be an extraordinary counselor to any king in the world.” More’s support for education and knowledge continues throughout Utopia. He illustrates how every child in Utopia receives an education and that the Utopians consider
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
A ruler should have a reputation of being generous, but not actually being generous. If you truly are generous your reputation could be damaged. A ruler who has a reputation as being generous will end up wasting all of his resources and money, causing him to tax the people to continue living plentifully. This will make the people hate him, and possibly turn against him. In the end this helps no one. “ So we see a ruler cannot seek to benefit from a reputation as a generous without harming himself” ( pg. 49) Being miserly is better than being generous. A miserly ruler may be perceived as miserly in the beginning, but he will eventually earn a reputation as being generous. A ruler who is frugal will eventually have enough money to defend himself and his people against danger, and undertake new initiatives without having to tax the people. By being miserly a ruler has greater power because he has money and with money comes great power, and with power you can dominate anything that you want, hence the phrase a person who has money is dangerous. Being mean allows a ruler to govern. This does not mean you should rob your people.