Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
Machiavelli, Thomas More, Thomas Hobbes
Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes appear to recommend political actions and systems that take people "the way they are." In contrast, Thomas More and Aristotle appear to recommend political actions and systems designed to help people change the way they are. To what extent is this description of their approaches accurate?
According to the introduction to his text The Prince, Machiavelli believes that "the way humans act and should act are seldom the same." What Machiavelli means by this, however, is not that human beings fail to uphold their innately good ideals. What the theorist and advisor means is that a human being in a position of power does not have the luxury of asking himself what is good. A leader only can ask what is expedient for his state and what will continue his reign of power as a leader.
In direct contrast, the Greek philosopher Aristotle begins his Nichomedian Ethics by stating that "Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." Aristotle,...
Aristotle's text is concerned with the abstract, namely what constitutes what is ethically 'good.' Aristotle assumes that all things, human and nonhuman tend to do what is good. In contrast, Machiavelli believes that all things, especially leaders of nation, wish to survive. For Machiavelli, because he is advising a Prince of a nation, for the Prince to survive is deemed to be good for both the man and the state -- however, it is not the goodness that is to be aimed at, but the ends, namely survival. The means is whatever gets one to that ends of political survival and achievement.
Thomas Hobbes likewise attempts to paint a picture, not of an idealized world of good, but as a place where things tend, not to the 'good' but to evil. Not only is life, in the philosopher's famous phrase, nasty, brutish and short. Hobbes stated "for as to the strength of body, the weakest has strength enough to kill the strongest, either by secret machination or by confederacy with others that are…
Machiavelli, Thomas More, Thomas Hobbes Under what circumstances is it just (or right, or ethical) to go to war? Why? Compare and contrast how Machiavelli, Thomas More, and Thomas Hobbes might answer this question. Because of the rather negative perception of Niccolo Machiavelli's theories of political survival and expediency at all costs, one might be tempted to assume that the Italian political theorist believed that the ideal leader, The Prince, should go
Furthermore, that the intent of all princes should be to use all means necessary to maintain their powerbase. The works of Thomas Hobbes were revolutionary during his time period. He used his understanding of human nature and extrapolated the need for absolutism within government. The Leviathan was revolutionary in that it expounded Hobbesian concept of a material universe. His essential premise is that everything in the universe consists only of
In exchange, the words which drive Machiavelli's work are very much a reflection of the groundswell of discontent with the ideological hegemony of the church and the feudal system. Thus, though we regard Machiavelli's contempt for terms of 'good' and 'not good' as inherently permissive to severe violation of the rights and experiences of others, we must also understand it as something of a reaction to such forces as
" (Prince: 61) The second important thing to focus on is the military strength of that person. Does the ruler possess greater military might than the displaced ruler? If yes, then there is no point in rejecting him as the new ruler. This is because with his military weapons, he is likely to prove valuable to the country in the long run. Michaela's views on the art of war and possession
Aristotle, Hobbes, Machiavelli and Bellah What are the different conceptions of knowledge that inform Hobbes's and Aristotle's respective accounts of politics? Be specific about questions of individualism, virtue, and justice. In Bellah's terms, what kind of politics would they support? How are they related to Bellah's views on the relationship between social science and social life? Aristotle stated repeatedly that the needs of the state and society overrode individual pleasures, desires and
Politics Modern Political Thought The transition from a feudal serf economy to a capitalist market economy was one of the fundamental shifts which have produced modernity as we know it. This essay aims to understand how the authors of The Prince and Leviathan, Niccolo Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes would think about the transition and how these two great minds would relate to the issue of capitalism. Capitalism is a funny game that