Machiavelli and Rousseau's Views on Human Nature and Government

558 Words2 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. 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...

Show More
Related

  • American Government in Contrast to Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli

    841 Words  | 2 Pages

    Niccolo Machiavelli believes in a strong government. The leader should be strong and feared. I believe he gets this idea from the fear of God; no one is supposed to question God because he is so feared, and in the same sense, no one should question a strong leader. Machiavelli realizes that the leader should be feared, but not hated. A hated leader will probably be killed in a rebellion. One also can not be loved. Any compassion towards your citizens will make them believe you are weak, and they will rebel. He thinks a very strong military is necessary at all times, and that powerful arms should be available and in hand. This idea is similar to that of right wing America and our friends, the National Rifle Association, who believe assault rifles are America’s pastime. The nation should always be prepared for war, and should always be searching for new lands to conquer. T...

    Read More

  • 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

  • The Tao-te Ching by Lao-Tzu and The Prince by Machiavelli

    1754 Words  | 4 Pages

    Although they share some similarities in ideology, these parallels are greatly overshadowed by the concepts in which Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli diverge. Their primary distinction lies within their view of human nature and it’s role in governing. Lao-Tzu maintains that if we promote a system of governing to the least possible extent, then human nature should manifest a favorable temperance and dictate the direction of society. In fact, Lao-Tzu asserts numerous attempts to illustrate his point that if leaders, “Stop Trying to control” (§ 57, 35), then there is no desire (§ 37, 24), he dwells in reality (§ 38, 29), and “the world will govern itself.” (§ 57, 35) Although this is an extremely optimistic and beneficial ideal, the main problem with Lao-Tzu’s entire philosophy is exactly that, it can only be viewed as a philosophy. Because it appears under the section entitled “Government,” I...

    Read More

  • Machiavelli's Reputation in the Modern World

    2975 Words  | 6 Pages

    Niccolò Machiavelli was known during much his life as a part of the republican government in Florence until 1512. At that time, the Medici family took over the city and ruled under a more monarchical system. From that point until his death in 1527, Machiavelli was always just on the outside of Florentine politics. He would occasionally get work from the Medici but his tasks were never as important as they had been under the republican government of the past. As he was trying to find his way back into a major role in Florentine government, Machiavelli wrote The Prince, a manual of sorts that explained how a monarch should rule his state and why. While Machiavelli had been a strong proponent of republican ideals in the past, in The Prince, his ideas are far from adhering to republicanism. The book seems to promote the ideal monarch as a cold, heartless person whose only goal in life should be to retain power, regardless of who or what he destroys. This includes killing enemies of the state, personal enemies of the Prince, and even, in some cases, friends or family. While The Prince was not the first book of this kind, it was the first to suggest a government that rules with no regard for religion or morality. Machiavelli did not particularly pay heed to religious law in the way he lived his life, but he also did not particularly care for the Catholic Church of the time because of the lack of morality demonstrated by the Pope's and other supposedly "religious men's" actions at the time. There are other works that Machiavelli wrote both before and after The Prince that survive today, as well as letters he wrote to his friends that demonstrate a different set of ideals than th...

    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

  • The Use of Immorality in Order to Achieve Popular Rule

    1473 Words  | 3 Pages

    Overall Machiavelli’s perspective does seem harsh and cold at times, but he proves to be an avid supporter of popular rule throughout his writings. He believes in popular rule so strongly that he states it is acceptable to use immoral means to achieve a peaceful government. If the citizens are not happy and feel their ruler disregards their wishes then the populace could become enraged and therefore, the ruler would not be executing his power of indirect popular rule. Machiavelli states that in order to achieve the necessity of popular rule, a leader will have to step outside a moral sphere and do whatever it takes to achieve popular rule. Machiavelli puts clear and strict limits on acts of immorality in leadership. The use of immorality is only acceptable in order to achieve overall good for a government. Engaging in immorality for the sake of popular rule is justified because it is done to serve the people and the state successfully.

    Read More

  • Comparing Machiavelli's The Prince and Plato's The Republic

    1784 Words  | 4 Pages

    Machiavelli?s model for his ideal prince was Cesare Borgia, also known as Duke Valentino and son of Pope Alexander VI.  He believed Cesare Borgia possessed all the qualities of a prince destined to rule and maintain power in his state. He believed that politics has a morality of its own.  There is no regard of justness or unjustness, of cruelty or  mercy, of  approval  or  humiliation, which   should   interfere   with  the  decision  of defending the state and preserving its freedom.  Therefore, the ruler/prince's single responsibilit...

    Read More

  • Political Thinking: The Perennial Analysis

    2586 Words  | 6 Pages

    ...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.

    Read More

  • Compare And Contrast John Locke And Machiavelli

    1447 Words  | 3 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

    Read More

  • Human Nature In Plato's The Prince By Niccolo Machiavelli

    1365 Words  | 3 Pages

    Niccolo Machiavelli was a political philosopher from Florence, Italy. The period that Machiavelli lived in was the "rebirth" of art in Italy and rediscovery of ancient philosophy, literature and science. He wrote The Prince, in which he discusses the proper way of living as a prince. His ideas, which were not viewed as beneficial at the time, were incredibly cynical and took time for the rest of the population to really catch onto the ideas. Machiavelli’s view of human nature was that humans are born evil, and while they can show good traits, and the common man is not to be trusted. Unlike Confucius, Machiavelli believes that human nature cannot be changed, and unlike Plato, where Plato believes in humans as social beings. Each respected view

    Read More

  • Machiavelli?s View Of Human Nature

    1074 Words  | 3 Pages

    Machiavelli has long been required reading for everyone intrested in politics and power. In The Prince Niccolo M

    Read More

  • Political Philosophy in Machiavelli’s The Prince and Discourses on Livy

    721 Words  | 2 Pages

    Machiavelli’s The Prince shows how to gain political power in anyway possible. He is almost completely pragmatic in the book with little regard to morals. He states at the outset of the book that he is not dealing with republics but with princes and the best ways for them to rule over the people (1). Machiavelli believes that one of the most needed traits in a prince is that he be both feared and loved. He knew this was hard to accomplish and said that if a prince had to choose between being loved or feared he should choose fear. Machiavelli describes men as “Thankless, fickle, false, studious to avoid danger, greedy of gain, devoted to you while you able to confer benefits upon them… but in your hour of need they turn against you”(43-44). This low view of man that Machiavelli expressed impacted the way he felt a prince should rule. He seem...

    Read More

  • Erasmus Vs Machiavelli

    876 Words  | 2 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • Machiavelli's Leadership

    869 Words  | 2 Pages

    The time of the Renaissance is one filled with growth of intellect, beauty of nature, the dignity of mankind, and the rising of artists. It is characterized from the move of scholasticism, a devotion specifically for the theological and philosophical teachings of the Church to humanism, a devotion to the humanities of rhetoric, arithmetic, and other subjects. One example of this movement can be seen in Machiavelli’s The Prince in which describes Niccolo Machiavelli’s ideal ruler and how to obtain stability, which was lacking as during the time of his writing this, there was a power shift from the Mediterranean to Northern Europe. How Machiavelli describes his ideal prince and his leadership is one that in which he is

    Read More

  • Machiavelli's Views On Human Nature

    1782 Words  | 4 Pages

    Having written The Prince in 1532, it is easy to identify Machiavelli’s views on human nature as bleak and largely immoral. From this identification, one is able to relate his political advice to the modern day; however, doing so will only result in the realization that they are largely incompatible. In this essay, three of Machiavelli’s main points will be challenged according to modern day standards of politics, morality, and ethics. His sentiments regarding neutrality, public opinion, and presence, all of which are cornerstones of his philosophy, will be analyzed, ultimately revealing, with little exception, the way they do not apply to the modern standards of leadership. Machiavelli lived during a period of great moral deficiency.

    Read More

More about Machiavelli and Rousseau's Views on Human Nature and Government

Open Document