Hobbes Locke Rousseau and Machiavelli, European_History, College Term Papers.com


		Data Bases
		• Custom Term Papers • Free Term Papers • Free Research Papers • Free Essays • Free Book Reports • Plagiarism?

		Links
		• Top 100 Term Paper Sites • Top 25 Essay Sites • Top 50 Essay Sites • Search 97,000 Papers @ DirectEssays.com • Search 101,000 Papers @ ExampleEssays.com • Search 90,000 Papers @ MegaEssays.com

		Free Essays
		• Term Paper Sites • Chuck III's Free Essays • Free College Essays • TermPaperSites.com • My Term Papers • Get Free Essays • Essay World • Planet Papers

Search Lots of Essays

Back to Subjects - European History

Hobbes Locke Rousseau and Machiavelli

Hobbes Locke Rousseau and Machiavelli The thirteenth through the eighteenth century brought profound changes in the political realm of Western civilization. Beginning with the Scientific Revolution and only advancing during the Renaissance, secularization and skepticism lead to changes in not only the intellectual life of Westerners, but also to their politics. At the forefront of the political debate were well-versed men such as Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. The influences of these men, though often criticized, can clearly be seen in the centuries and decades following their noted works. Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau shared many concepts, but the similarities between their theories end at the word politics. Each had different ideas. Rousseau’s and Locke’s ideas appear to be wishful thinking while Hobbes’s ideas seem to be too cynical. Machiavelli’s ideas seem practical for his day and for an authoritarian government, but definitely not for a democratic system such as ours. I believe that the most accurate view for a successful society lies somewhere in between Hobbes’s cynicism and Locke’s optimism. Regardless as to who is most accurate, it is obvious that Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau all shaped modern political theories by their views. Machiavelli was a prominent figure during the early sixteenth century. His political view stemmed from observing the division of Italy into small city-state systems during the late fifteenth century. Invasions, corruption, and instable governments marked this time period. According to Machiavelli, the success of the city-states was dependent on the effectiveness of the autocrats who headed these states. Machiavelli, through observation, saw what was necessary for an authoritarian state to be successful. According to Machiavelli, the state and its laws were a creation of man that should be protected by the prince in whatever means necessary. “Machiavelli identifies the interests of the prince with the interests of the state.” He felt that it was human nature to be selfish, opportunistic, cynical, dishonest, and gullible, which in essence, can be true. The state of nature was one of conflict; but conflict, Machiavelli reasoned, could be beneficial under the organization of a ruler. Machiavelli did not see all men as equal. He felt that some men were better suited to rule than others. I believe that this is true in almost any government. However, man in general, was corrupt – always in search of more power. He felt that because of this corruptness, an absolute monarch was necessary to insure stability. Machiavelli outlined what characteristics this absolute ruler should have in The Prince. One example of this can be seen in his writings concerning morality. He saw the Judeo-Christian values as faulty in the state’s success. “Such visionary expectations, he held, bring the state to ruin, for we do not live in the world of the “ought,” the fanciful utopia, but in the world of “is”. The prince’s role was not to promote virtue, but to insure security. He reasoned that the Judeo-Christian values would make a ruler week if he actually possessed them, but that they could be useful in dealing with the citizens if the prince seemed to have these qualities. Another example of Machiavelli’s ideal characteristics of a prince regards fear and love. “…whether it is better to be loved rather than feared, or feared rather than loved. It might be answered that we should wish to be both; but since love and fear can hardly exist together, if we must choose between them, it is far safer to be feared than loved.” Above all, Machiavelli felt the prince should appear to have many qualities in order to benefit his relationship with the citizens so that he could effectively control the state through their gullibility. There have been many rulers like this who were successful. Thomas Hobbes was born in 1588 and died in 1679. He lived through the Scientific Revolution as well as a political revolution. The English Civil war of the 1640’s influenced his political philosophy more than any other event. His most famous work, The Leviathan, was a written response to the English civil war, but also one of his attempts to unite the worlds of science and politics. Hobbes reasoned that human behavior functioned according to laws just as math and science. “He believed that he had created a scientific model of the political world that was as precise and accurate as Euclid’s system.” Hobbes, just like Machiavelli, thought he had the remedy to run a successful government. Hobbes’s remedy is known as the Leviathan. The Leviathan is an authoritarian government that could enforce the social contract by whatever means necessary. In this government, people collectively give up all rights except self – preservation, and the government shapes the will of the people into one. Hobbes rationalizes this conformity in that he believes individualism breeds anarchy and conformity breeds order. However, the possibility of actually conforming every individual’s will into one is unlikely. Hobbes sees man just as Machiavelli – evil, conniving, corrupt, and violent. He stated in the Leviathan: “…. that during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war.” To an extent, I believe this is true. Man, n my opinion, is only interested in achieving his own success. What hurts him, he avoids; what helps him, he befriends. Hobbes, unlike Machiavelli, sees men as equal – equal in the capability of killing one another. He reasoned that because of this equality people would eventually come to the conclusion that they could prevent their demise by behaving toward one another in mutually beneficial ways. This, Hobbes said, is why man enters into a social contract. Once man enters into this contract, there is no way to withdraw from it or rebel because without this government man would meet his demise. There is some accuracy to this idea, but I see man as acting in mutually beneficial ways not only to avoid death, but to also better benefit themselves. Like Machiavelli, Hobbes also acknowledged that the state was a creation of man as were the laws, but he takes this to the next level. Hobbes felt that morals (right and wrong) were also created, but by the rulers. By doing this, he justifies every action of the state, good or evil. This is one reason why Hobbes was so widely criticized in his day - he left no room for God. “For him, the state was a human invention organized by human beings to deal with a human problem, and its legitimacy and power rested purely on human authority.” Whatever is done is just because society is a direct creation of the state and a reflection of the ruler. The ruler dictates what is right and what is wrong. Hobbes’s view supports people like Hitler who are judge, jury, and executioner. John Locke lived primarily during the seventeenth century. Locke’s approach to politics was on the opposite end of the spectrum from Machiavelli and Hobbes even though he lived during the same era as Hobbes. While one might look at Hobbes as a cynic, one would see Locke as a noble “do-gooder”. Locke’s main goal was to preserve individual freedom. Perfect freedom to Locke was the freedom to order our actions and manage our possessions as we see fit. Locke, like Hobbes, was also influenced by the English Civil war, but he takes the opposite side from Hobbes, justifying revolt. He did, however, agree with Hobbes and Machiavelli that observation was a key element to finding the successful way to run the state and that he held the key to success. Locke, unlike Hobbes and Machiavelli, viewed man as basically good. I do not feel that this is an accurate portrayal because we would not have the need for guns if this were true. However, one of his chief strengths was that he felt that man was capable of reason and therefore capable of knowing right from wrong. He also recognized that even though man is capable of this, he does not always act with this knowledge. He believed that everyone is born free, rational, and equal. Again, I do not believe this is true. Some people are born into better situations or with better talents than others. Locke proposed that man forms a social contract in order to preserve his rights (namely life, liberty, and property) in a more efficient manner. For Locke, “Government simply ends a state of nature in which dangerous self-judgment is the rule.” However, should the government fail to preserve its citizens’ rights (or threaten his rights), Locke said the people had the right to rebel. He did agree with Machiavelli and Hobbes in the area of divine rights. Locke, like them, felt that the public elected leaders. But, Locke also felt that the government was responsible to its citizens and when it failed to do the job properly the citizens had the rights to find someone who could. However, there are fewer similarities and more differences between people like Locke and Hobbes. Hobbes promoted people like Hitler; Lock promoted people like Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson and should be applauded for his democratic initiative. Jean – Jacques Rousseau lived during the eighteenth century. He was born in Geneva, Switzerland. If Locke’s approach was on the opposite end of the spectrum from Machiavelli’s and Hobbes’s, Rousseau’s must have been in another galaxy (personally, I think Rousseau was in another galaxy). Rousseau felt that the more knowledge governments acquired, the more they inhibited the personal rights of the citizens. I think that the more knowledge we have the more ability we have to help society. Rousseau’s political theory reached out beyond the generic man presented before by many others and revealed a more emotional and passionate individual. In the mind of Rousseau, society went wrong when it became society. While Locke tries to protect private property, he condemns it as the cause for the end of natural equality. He felt that man was better before he entered the hierarchal world and became unequal. He commented: “…I should say that so long as a people is compelled to obey and does obey, it does well; but that so soon as it can shake off the yoke and does shake it off, it does better.” This is anarchy! Rousseau, like Locke, believed that man is basically good. In the natural state, Rousseau felt that man could be virtuous. He did not believe in the same form of government as Machiavelli, Hobbes, or Locke. He felt that men should give up themselves to the good of the community in a social contract. Rousseau’s ideal state would be a small community. It seems accurate that a small state would be better because it would know the needs of its citizens. Like Locke, he felt that the duty of the state was to secure freedom, however Rousseau’s idea of freedom differs from Locke’s. Rousseau felt that true freedom lied in the will of the majority. In order to keep your freedom you must agree with the will of the majority, replacing justice with instinct. He felt that if someone did not agree with the majority that it was the state’s job to make them agree. More or less, Rousseau believed in utopia – where every man was equal and was given the same things and treated the same and if he was not he needed to be reformed so that he could be. Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau contributed to modern political theory placing the individual as the center of importance. All tried to find a political system that would work. Each was influenced by careful observation of the events of his day. Each believed that a form of government was necessary. If each theory had to stand on its own, I believe Machiavelli’s might be the only successful form of government (not the best for the people, but the only one that survives). For this to be the case, a ruler would truly have to follow Machiavelli’s ideal character of a prince and sway the people. However, Locke, in my opinion, had the overall best view because he was concerned with the welfare of man. He promotes mans ability to reason. However, I think that Locke fails to see that even though man is capable of reason, he often uses his reason in not so commendable ways. For this, Hobbes should be much admired, but he takes this to the extreme. I feel that Rousseau is basically living in a dream world. The likelihood of men all agreeing is non-existent. However, he propose a smaller state that could better benefit a community. Regardless as to whose theory is more accurate, all have notable ideas. This is apparent in that hundreds of years later we still study and critique them. Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau created a legacy that lives on two hundred (plus) years later in the conversations and debates their contrasting opinions create. Author unknown [June 11, 2000]. “Niccolo Machiavelli”. Available: *http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Marble/5888/viewsfr.htm* [Oct. 6, 2000] Bernstein, Alvin [no date]. “Locke vs. Rousseau: The Modern vs. the Medieval”. Available: *http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/5148/Bernstein_on_locke.htm* [Oct. 6, Cassidy [no date]. “Hobbes vs. Locke vs. Rousseau”. Available: *http://provost.ecsd.edu/Roosevelt/mmw/hvslvsr.htm* [Oct. 6, 2000] Nickles, Tom [no date]. “Niccolo Machiavelli” Available: *http://unr.edu.homepage/nickels/wthonors/machiavelli.htm* [Oct.6, 2000] United States Military Academy [no date]. “Prophets of Modern Science”. Available: *http://www.dean.usma.edu/sosc/AP/SS252/Links From Block I/Shaping Modern Bibliography: Weber, Eugen. Edited version of The Social Contract, by Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The Western Tradition: Renaissance to the Present (Los Angeles: D.C. Heath and Company, 1995), 225. ---- Edited version of The Leviathan, by Thomas Hobbes. The Western Tradition: Renaissance to the Present (Los Angeles: D.C. Heath and Company, 1995), 184. ---- Edited version of The Leviathan, by Thomas Hobbes. The Western Tradition: Renaissance to the Present (Los Angeles: D.C. Heath and Company, 1995), 184. ---- Edited version of The Prince, by Niccolo Machiavelli. The Western Tradition: Renaissance to the Present (Los Angeles: D.C. Heath and Company, 1995), 20.

Word Count: 2228

DMCA Notifications and Requests