Political Science And Philosophy: The Nature Of Human Nature

1664 Words4 Pages

Introduction
From the beginning of ancient history the main question for political philosophy is how a human being exists in society, who should govern the society, how should the society be governed, who are the best rulers and how should they behave themselves, what is just and what is unjust, is better to be governed through just or not, how should the states be structured? These are main questions in political philosophy, that until today are strictly discussed. The major tasks of political philosophers are to analyze the nature of human being and to evaluate the ways in which an individual relates with society he lives in. The study of human nature is one of the most important aspects of political science and philosophy. In the process of creating a form of governance it is essential to understand the innate characteristics of human nature in order to avoid a bad government for all society and to achieve the ways how people should be governed most effectively. From the ancient time the roots of justification of political power were tied to sights of human nature.
Political philosophers try to establish principles according which it will be possible to justify a particular form of government and state, will be possible to prove that individuals have their inalienable rights, will be possible to see how to share material and natural resources justly within the society and its members, but the question is whether these principles have universal validity or they have just the meaning of assumptions about the particular political society?
Plato, Aristotle and Machiavelli have spent their lives in assertion of which form of government is good and who should be ruler, what type of ...

... middle of paper ...

...s Prince should know what to do and should do what is needed. Philosopher kings are willing to make the necessary sacrifices because it is for the good of state. Both philosophers realized that it is necessary for a ruler to have complete power in and both agreed that a virtue is needed to create a good state and without virtue each and every state will fail.
Machiavelli asserted that people should be left alone to support the ruler, while Plato argued that government needs to interfere with people to make their lives virtuous. Machiavelli’s Prince is oriented to maintain his power, while Plato’s philosopher king cares for his people not his own power.
Ⅲ
Aristotle was a pupil of Plato and

Show More
Related

  • Comparison of Lao-tzu and Machiavelli

    726 Words  | 2 Pages

    author of Prince. They are both philosophers but have totally different perspective on how to be a good leader. While both philosopher’s writing is instructive. Lao-tzu’s advice issues from detached view of a universal ruler; Machiavelli’s advice is very personal perhaps demanding. Both philosophers’ idea will not work for today’s world, because that modern world is not as perfect as Lao-tzu described in Tao-te Ching, and not as chaotic as Machiavelli illustrated in Prince.

    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

  • Thucydides and The Civil War at Corcyra

    2021 Words  | 5 Pages

    In summation this paper discussed the three correct types of regimes according to Aristotle; furthermore it examined the deviations of these regimes. This was done by firstly examining a regime led by royalty, secondly by observing the characteristics of an aristocratic regime and thirdly by discussing a regime ran by constitutional government. Finally defining the three correct types of regimes the deviations of these regimes: tyrannical, oligarchic and democratic were examined.

    Read More

  • Analysis Of Political Philosophy By Stephen Nathanson

    874 Words  | 2 Pages

    The book aims at introducing political philosophy. To achieve this the author Stephen Nathanson has focused on a particular issue that is relevant to everyone. He discusses the problem of developing a personal outlook toward government and political life. Instead of attempting to survey the entire field of political philosophy, or discussing in brief a large number of classical or contemporary authors, the writer focuses on one question, what’s our thought or feeling about government institutions?

    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

  • Plato vs. Machiavelli

    1692 Words  | 4 Pages

    ...gime seizing power or trampling their rights and stealing their possessions, they can live in a state of contentment, and even happiness. As for the populace's role in government, anyone can have an impact on the game of power if they know what to do and have the support to do it. Power is not restricted to one type of people or one class, but is "up for grabs" and waiting for the boldest to seize it. For Machiavelli, the people are more than just a mass to be divided and placed in a proper order, but a powerful force that must be considered and respected by the one who would rule over them. But for both Plato and Machiavelli, government seems to be a necessary and natural state under which humankind can operate and survive.

    Read More

  • The Consolation Of Philosophy: The Relationship Between Morality And Politics

    1596 Words  | 4 Pages

    The Ancient-Modern debate focuses on the true definition of happiness and how one can fully attain it. It’s main principles encompass the following: The relationship between morality and politics, the purpose of politics, technical activity/necessary knowledge that one beholds, and human nature. According to the ancient view morality and virtue play the central role in ones conduct of their political and private affairs, and both Socrates’ and Boethius’ view is that in order to be an effective ruler one must be morally good; Plato believed that Philosophers were worthy rulers as well. While the modern view separates morality from politics and claims that there is no correlation between the two. Unlike Boethius, Machiavelli states that a person does not and should not be moral in order to be a ruler and if they are moral and righteous they will fail at being a successful leader.

    Read More

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

    1784 Words  | 4 Pages

    In The Prince, Machiavelli was addressing a monarchical ruler and offering advice designed to keep that ruler in power.  He felt that Cesare Borgia was model for the perfect prince. He was able to give actual examples of how princes during his time ruled and how they failed or succeeded in doing so.  Plato, in contrast was perhaps unrealistic. His ruler and state could only be used to  better understand the meaning of justice. It could never be practiced in real life because he neglects the fact that everyone sins and fails to mention this in his ideal ruler and state.

    Read More

  • Machiavellian Human and Proud

    570 Words  | 2 Pages

    Those who are known to use cunning and deceiving tricks to get ahead are often called Machiavellian. Yet, they can also be described as realistic and practical. Unlike Plato, Niccolo Machiavelli sees mankind as it truly is. Machiavelli knows what humans really want and he sees us for what we really are. Whether that be selfish, conceiving, ungenerous, or immoral, it is true. He shows us how to use all our qualities to better ourselves, and how that could better our society. Plato, on the other hand, wants to be a perfecter of good qualities, and doesn't acknowledge how our bad qualities can work for us. Ideally if we could all share the knowledge and goodness we have, society would be perfect, but why strive for perfection? Machiavelli better understands mankind and society as it is today, while Plato is simply ideological.

    Read More

  • Legitimacy and the Foundations of Legitimate Government

    6740 Words  | 14 Pages

    A logical starting point in an investigation of legitimate government would seem to be an account of the original purpose of government. Problems arise, though, in discovering this original purpose; any and all attempts seem to consist of mere speculation. Government is a social convention created by man.* It is doubtful whether or not there can ever be an empirically accurate account of the creation of government. Without this crucial information, a search for the original purpose of government appears futile. I had once thought that an account of human nature may provide insight into this enigma; I now believe that it is equally doubtful that there can be a true account of human nature. So where does this leave the political theorist?

    Read More

  • Compare And Contrast Plato And Aristotle On Government

    708 Words  | 2 Pages

    Plato’s thoughts about power and reason are much different than Aristotle. Plato looked at the meaning of justice and different types of governments. Plato looked into four different types of governments

    Read More

  • A Good Government In Plato's The Republic

    776 Words  | 2 Pages

    “The study of fundamental questions about the state, government, politics, liberty justice, and the enforcement of a legal code by authority,” is the definition of political philosophy. It is basically ethics applied to a group of people with questions whose purpose is to figure out how to set up a society and how one is expected to act in said society (Mastin). Some questions asked are “what makes a good government,” “how do we keep leaders from doing the wrong thing,” and “what makes a good citizen?” These questions area relevant and important because the answers shape a society. Without some type of government, either good or bad, there would be chaos. Since a good government is better than a bad government, those philosophical questions

    Read More

  • My Political Philosophy

    2190 Words  | 5 Pages

    Political Philosophy is typically a study of a wide range of topics such as, justice, liberty, equality, rights, law, politics and the application of a codified law. Depending on what the philosophy is, it usually tends to be a very sensitive and a personal ideology that an individual holds within the reality of their existence. Several of the fundamental topics of political philosophy shape up the society that we live in as these specific topics and their implementation by the state ensures a legitimate government. In Political Philosophy, the aforesaid concepts or topics are evaluated and analyzed with tremendous depth in context to their history and intent. Furthermore, in a rather colloquial sense, political philosophy is generally a point of view which after some deep thinking asks questions such as, what are the government’s duties? Is it legitimate? What makes it legitimate? What are the duties of its citizens? What are their rights? Are they protected? So on and so forth. In the following paper, I will canvass my political philosophy and elaborate on my reasoning behind it.

    Read More

  • Human Nature and the Social Order

    849 Words  | 2 Pages

    Human nature is not simply a measure of our human tendencies. It is both individual and collective. It does not explain why events happen. Instead, it explains the subconscious of each individual in the instant that events happen. The social order that best fits human nature is one where the informed opinions of everyone creates decisions and causes action. Madison’s argument for and against factions, Aristotle’s idea of ultimate happiness, and Locke’s concept of popular government and human rights all offer a significant component to the larger concept that is human nature. While some may argue that we will only fully understand human nature when we are met with death, still we can begin to capture a slight understanding to what governs human nature and the political order that helps it grow.

    Read More

  • Compare And Contrast Plato And Machiavelli

    947 Words  | 2 Pages

    Notwithstanding the two philosophers’ different views on abstract concepts, Machiavelli’s virtù to fortuna is comparable to Plato’s Justice to Good. Each philosopher grants his ruler with a specific trait that deviates from the leader’s acquired knowledge of abstract concepts. Under their beliefs, the best ruler is the one who conforms to this virtuous trait--for Plato, Justice (Plato 519b-c), and for Machiavelli, virtù (Machiavelli, Prince 29). These traits then extend to a multitude of characteristics that define the careful instruction both philosophers laid out and that will allow the leader to directly change society into a worthy political

    Read More

More about Political Science And Philosophy: The Nature Of Human Nature

Open Document