Machiavelli’s View of Human Nature
Simple versions of Machiavelli’s conception of human nature may readily be elicited from The Prince. It is easy to find textual support for claims that appear to presuppose or be equivalent to some version of psychological egoism. He says, for example, that “men in general … are ungrateful, voluble, dissemblers, anxious to avoid danger, and covetous of gain; as long as you benefit them, they are entirely yours,” but their “love is held by a chain of obligation which, men being selfish, is broken whenever it serves their purpose.” (Prince, xvii, p. 61) Again, speaking of a prince’s counselors, he says “[they] will all think of their own interests …. for men will always be false … unless they are compelled by necessity to be true.” (Prince, xxiii, p. 89)
Beyond specific citations, there is what may be called the atmosphere of the work. Machiavelli constantly assumes that, regardless of what ought to be done, there is no reason to expect that it will be unless it accords with someone’s interests. Objectives which are not secular or this-worldly are only rarely mentioned, and those who concern themselves primarily with such aims are rather summarily dismissed as theorists only for imaginary republics and principalities. (Prince, xv, p. 56) His appeal is always to the prudence of rulers, and he constantly speaks of what is or is not in their interests. It might almost be said that he has no other arguments to offer, no other considerations to bring to bear.
Equally easily, one can find textual support – often in the same texts – for claims that seem to echo the Christian doctrine of Original Sin. Thus, Machiavelli says that “as [men] are bad, and would not observe their faith with you, so ...
... middle of paper ...
... not be understood to be doing so. A related point is argued in Burnham, 55-63.
[3] Kavka spells this out further (64f.) as the conjunction of four propositions:
1. For most people in most situations, the ‘altruistic gain/personal loss’ ratio needed to reliably motivate self-sacrificing action is large.
2. The number of people for whom altruism and other non-self-interested motives normally override self-interested motives is small.
3. The number of situations, for the average person, in which non-self-interested motives override personal interest is small.
4. The scope of altruistic motives that are strong enough to normally override self-interest is, for most people, small, that is, confined to concern for family, close friends, close associates, or particular groups or public projects to which the individual is devoted.
On Jan. 17, 1920, America went completely dry. The 18th Amendment of the United States Constitution had been ratified a year earlier, banning “the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors” within the United States and its territories. This began the era of Prohibition, a 14-year time period of law-breaking unlike any other in our country’s history fueled by bootleggers, gangs, speak easies and mafias. The 18th Amendment was a rarity in that it limited the rights of the individual rather than the activities of the government, thereby guaranteeing an unfavorable reception and reaction. “Last Call” The Rise and Fall of Prohibition was written by Daniel Okrent and published in May 2010 and is a historical explanation of the Prohibition era. Prohibition through the 18th Amendment holds the distinction of being the only constitutional amendment ever to be repealed. This fact leads one to ask: How did this even occur? Why would Americans sacrifice their precious right to drink?
Philosophers have developed many different theories to explain the existence and behavior of “free will.” This classical debate has created two main family trees of theories, with multiple layers and overlapping. It all begins with Determinist and Indeterminist theories. Simply put, determinists believe that our choices are determined by circumstance, and that the freedom to make our own decisions does not exist. Indeterminists, for example Libertarians, believe that we are free to make our own choices; these choices are not determined by other factors, like prior events. In class, we began the discussion of free will, and the competing arguments of Determinists and Indeterminists, with the works of Roderick Chisholm, a libertarian who made
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...
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.
While the Eighteenth Amendment, federally enforced prohibition, was ratified on January 16th, 1919; thirty three states had already been enforcing their own prohibitions for much longer. Prohibition was so widely accepted because of the awful effects it was having on the general populace. Throughout the history of the United States alcohol had a place in everyday life. It was not uncommon for it to be had at every meal, and there were even drinking breaks much like the smoke breaks we have in this day and age.(A Nation Of Drunkards. Prohibition: Roots of Prohibition. PBS, n.d. Web.) The staggering amount of alcohol abuse, mainly by men, wrecked havoc on the home lives many; either by lacking income as it was being spent on alcohol, or by domestic abuse. Temperance groups such as Women’s Christian Temperance Union; which fought for women’s rights as well as their dreams of a dry country, and the later Anti-Saloon League strived to get congress to pass an amendment that would abolish the manufacture, distribution, and sale of all liquor. The ASL grew in strength and became a particularly powerful social and political influence, and soon the amendment was ratified. The idea was noble, and for a just cause, however prohibition had the opposite effect than was anticipated. Rather than being the “The great social and economic experiment”(The New Day; Campaign Speeches of Herbert Hoover) that it was supposed to be, it increased crime rates and allowed for the formation of crime syndicates who would make millions in illegal liquor sales through, bootlegging; the illegal production of alcohol, and rum-running; the smuggling of liquor into the United States that was legally produced elsewhere.
Prohibition is possibly one of the most memorable events in the history of the United States. The 18th Amendment and eventually the Volstead Act created the law that made it illegal to produce, sell and the transport of alcohol over .5%. Although to most it seemed like a good idea, prohibition promoted the likes of criminal entrepreneurs. Numerous government officials were apprehended in night-clubs and speakeasies but never punished. At the time prohibition was also separating the social classes and making issues for those less prominent in the community. Holes in the government’s plans were beginning to show through leading up to the 21st Amendment and the ratification of the 13th. Prohibition failed to limit consumption and was actually costing the US more than originally expected. However according to Dr. Jack Blocker’s article, “Alcohol Prohibition as a Public Health Innovation” the claim that prohibition failed is actually false and failed only because voters became blinded by priorities over the Great Depression. With the amount of money being made on the illegal sale of alcohol was consumption really limited, or did Americans see a chance to overcome poverty and ratify the Amendment.
Campbell’s view on Libertarianism is quite simple. Campbell suggests that one needs to judge people by their inner acts or intentions to understand free will. To have freedom one must have a precondition of moral responsibility as well as a categorical analysis of free...
The 18th amendment was ratified in the year of 1920. Although the ‘noble experiment’ was to last only until 1933, it had a profound effect upon the face of American social life. Those who supported Prohibition believed that it would solve all of the country’s woes. Prohibition was undertaken to reduce crime and corruption, solve social problems, reduce the tax burden created by prisons and poorhouses, and improve health and hygiene in America (p.70 USA Today 1992v120n2562). The fact of the matter is, however, not only was none of the above accomplished, the reverse ...
During the early 1920a and up to the early 1930s the United States of America entered a time that brought forward a series of regulations that prohibited the sale, manufacture and distribution of alcohol in the American territories. Through out history, experts have developed many hypotheses trying to determine the effects brought forward by this prohibition. Furthermore, these experts are also trying to determine whether national prohibition is to be considered a failure or success towards alcohol regulation. The 1920s national prohibition of production and consumerism of alcohol can be considered a national economic and regulation failure that brings forward laws that impact society and international relations today.
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...
People perpetrate seemingly selfless acts almost daily. You see it all over the news; the man who saved that woman from a burning building, the mother who sacrificed herself to protect her children from the bomb blast. But how benevolent are these actions? Are these so-called “heroes” really sacrificing themselves to help others? Until recently, it was the common belief that altruism, or selfless and unconditional kindness, was limited primarily to the human race. However, within the last century, the works of several scientists, most prominently George Price, have provided substantial evidence concluding that altruism is nothing more than a survival technique, one that can be calculated with a simple equation.
This paper shows that altruism is a very complex issue and much more information could be introduced, following this would allow a greater look at the complexity of other views such as the religious or the philosophical side. Garrett Hardin’s ‘lifeboat ethics’ is a perfect example and proof of this paper, showing that we would rather let others gets killed instead of trying to help a
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
For someone who believes in psychological egoism, i t is difficult to find an action that would be acknowledged as purely altruistic. In practice, altruism, is the performance of duties to others with no view to any sort of personal...
Within and beyond philosophy, lies the tension between the universal concept of free will and determinism. From a general standpoint, individuals are convinced that they rule and govern their own lives. Free will embodies that individuals have the freedom to dictate their own future. It asserts that our minds and essence have the capacity to choose our own actions and direction, whilst also choose alternative paths. Determinism on the other hand, suggests that life is a product of necessity and causation, built upon the foundations of the past and laws of nature. It threatens the thesis of free will by positing that the world and everything in it is knowable through strict cause and effect relationships - eliminating the possibility of freedom