Macchiavelli

During Machiavelli's time, society was much different than it had been for previous philosophers. Instead of storing up good works, so as to enjoy paradise, as the medieval man did, the Renaissance man was interested in all things, enjoyed life, strove for worldly acclaim and wealth, and had a deep interest in classical civilizations. Machiavelli thought that classical tradition was wrong in its understanding to humans, and argued that human personality is divided between a part that is self interested and a part that wants to live kindly with others. Because the natural human nature of people wants to be divided and because people are socialized, socialization he claims, can make the part that is self-interested become dominant. This then leads people to want power. And because of this, in Machiavelli's eyes, we cannot have a completely good society based on the fact that because the worst, most self-interested people always rise to the top therefore the rulers of a society are going to be the worst.

Knowing this will happen, Machiavelli feels that the only feasible way of preventing them from being highly oppressive is to construct a society that decreases exploitation and increases the general well being of the people. In Machiavelli's The Prince, he shows that the really intelligent ruler or prince will find it in his own self-interest to treat the people well. He would do this because the common people are not the threat to him because they are just peasant workers, rather the nobles are the most threatening because they feel that they are just as good if not better than the prince himself. So what Machiavelli is saying here is that if the prince acts in his own self-interest and kills the nobles who are trying to seize his power, it helps the people because the nobles won't oppress them anymore. This means that the nasty ruler that acts for his self-interest of staying in control , will be doing good for the people.

The question Machiavelli asks in The Discourses is knowing that the worst people will rise to the top, how do you prevent them from exploiting everyone else? He says that the common people can't do it, but with the divisions among powerful people both competing for the same thing, power, they will fight each other. This will then lead to some common people gaining power down the road and is known as checks and balances and the separation of powers.

Oddly enough, the prince that Machiavelli proposes, one whose stature is very attainable, as opposed to the unattainable ideal, has a more difficult job. He must present an appearance of greatness, composed of every awesome quality that would be desired in a ruler, yet where those of society cannot see him he is to be evil and manipulative. This goes against all that has been said about a ruler who needs to be tempered in the virtues of courage, justice, and wisdom in order to rule. Instead, Machiavelli tells of the idea of a real, but not highly regarded ruler who disregards all morals for the sake of gaining profit and power. In other words, he is a ruler who is highly self interested.

Thomas Hobbes would freely choose to create a horrible dictatorship. His reasoning behind this was a basis from the state of nature where there is no government at all. There would be no social structures and people would be free to create any type they would seem fit for their own self-interests. He then tells of what he is getting at by saying this. He says that we would be absolutely terrified because we would all realize that there are no laws or police to protect us and that we live in a world of scarcity and people compete with each other for prestige. Then his initiates that every thoughtful person would realize that and that the only way out is to create a government that controls everyone.

Safety is the one thing people need and without it, they can't live or can't work. Hobbes argues what we fundamentally need is protection. To get this, we must make laws and we must have people to enforce them. We can't get any of these until we have a government. Hobbes states that the government must be a totalitarian. Although this type of government doesn't give complete safety because the ruler could kill whoever he wanted, it does give more safety than before where anybody could go around and kill anybody else just because. That because was mostly based on competition for power and for the rights to property.

The question Locke answers is why would people in a state of nature decide on a limited government rather than Hobbes' totalitarian government? He says that if we had no government, we would choose one within reason to have limited powers for our rights.

The characteristics of such a government include individualism, the ability to have protection to people's natural rights to life, liberty and property, and the government