Roush 1
Human Nature is made up of many different things, from the choices a person makes and how they feel about making these choices, to how they are thinking when these choices are being made by them. In the world of political philosophy there have been many different views on this very topic. Views from Philosophers such as Machiavelli, Locke, Plato and, Rousseau all try to give the best understanding of human nature. All of these philosophers are intelligent and have hard far into their work to prove their work on human nature but they all have a different understanding of what the truest meaning of this actually is. In Machiavelli’s book The Prince he does an outstanding job of portraying what human nature actually is. Man is selfish according to Machiavelli and I believe that this is the truest of all Philosophies on human nature, in this essay I will develop an argument that supports why Machiavelli has the most correct understanding of Human nature by breaking down his book and also comparing it to John Locke and his book The Second Treatise of Government. Even though both views of human nature between Locke and Machiavelli have many similarities I will prove that Machiavelli has the most true account of this Philosophy.
The Prince has been known as the most famous book to be written in politics, even today this book comes off as exciting as it did five hundred years ago. This book is one of the first scientific treatments to politics.
Machiavelli seems to think that a good society is based around a good military. This is the first theme that I will be discussing in this essay. He believes that a good military will make good laws that will strongly govern a society. In The Prince Machiavelli wrote “the presence of soun...
... middle of paper ...
...ing ambitious can be rewarding.
Roush 5
When it comes to ruling Locke and Machiavelli has somewhat similar views by having a person in power and if they are not doing what they should for a state then they should be overthrown. Even though Locke says that the ruler is supposed to lookout for the betterment of the state and Machiavelli says that people tend to look-out for themselves. I think that Machiavelli has the truest idea of what actually happens especially in modern society and that Locke’s idea is a better, but is not the truest account of human nature.
To conclude, I have written this essay to state which Philosopher I thought had the truest understanding of human nature
Works Cited
Locke, J. (1690). Second Treatise of Government. Indianapolis: Hackett publishing company.
Machiavelli, N. (1998). The Prince. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
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
...e driven into civil society by their contentious natures. As such, all three have the need for an organizing and directing influence in society to ensure that it accomplishes the ends for which it exists. For Machiavelli and for Locke, this influence comes directly from the government. For Mill, this influence comes from within society, the associations one forms with other people; however it requires a certain minimal support from the government to keep it on the proper track. This influence is morality, and it is an extension of human nature.
First of all, Machiavelli had a negative view on human nature. He believed that people are only interested in themselves; they are trustworthy only when everything is all good, they tend to be deceitful. Machiavelli overall believed that people actions were only good when it benefited themselves. In Hamlet the character Claudius may be looked a...
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...
Although similarities between Machiavelli and Lao-Tzu may be difficult to detect, their views are both very extreme. Machiavelli believes that the prince should have total control and do anything to gain power; however, Lao-Tzu desires a political system in which everything runs its own course.
Machiavelli discusses assertive and bold ideas in “The Prince,” revealing his radical and courageous nature. His treatise is deceptively self-soliciting, because he disguises his extreme notions behind a veil of feigned expertise. His frank approach makes him appear confident and deserving of the utmost respect; however, he cautiously humbles himself by pouring immense flattery for the ruling prince into his work and, in doing so, assures protection for himself and his notorious ideas.
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.
The subject of human nature has great emphasis in “The Prince”. Human beings are viewed as rational decision makers who try to maximize their self-interest. They are inclined to help whoever will give them the most benefits and by definition, may easily betray someone to whom they were previously loyal seeing a better opportunity. A large part of being a prince or a politician is being able to lead people, and therefore it is of utter importance in how to deal with their behavior. “Here a question arises: whether it is better to be loved than feared, or the reverse. The answer is, of course, that it would be best to be both loved and feared. But since the two rarely come together, anyone compelled to choose will fin...
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
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.
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.
The behavior of altruism in an individual is when it brings more costs than benefits for the benefit of another individual. Altruism comes from the Latin word "Alter" which means "the others." This translation of alturism describes it relatively well. Another great definition of altruism can be found in a statement of Edward Osborne Wilson, an American biologist. According to Wilson, "Altruism is defined in biology, as in everyday life, as a self-destructive
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
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’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