Termpapers24

 

 

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 would have limited powers and have capitalism. This type of government would be designed to protect people against material scarcities and oppressive and arbitrary governments. He claims that a liberal society is not the best society, it is only the best society humans can obtain given peoples vested interests. Locke says that capitalism is the most effective way to produce the least amount of material scarcities and liberal government is most realistic solution against oppressiveness. As reasonable people, we would recognize that other reasonable people could be trusted. We would also agree that there must be a God.
He says that we too would recognize that we must have been put on here for a purpose, and if so then we have a duty to preserve our own lives and we also have a duty to preserve the lives of others. And we cannot do so, unless we are all free to do so. This then would lead everyone to believe that they have a god given right to life and liberty. And because these rights can’t be given away, nobody can create a government to take these rights away. So, the only legitimate form of rule is a rule that does not violate people’s natural rights.
Locke says not only can we create any type of government we want, we can also create any type of economy as well. This would lead to a capitalist economy because in state of nature, everybody is equal. In the beginning everybody would get equal ownership of land and recognize that private ownership to means of production is a natural right of liberty thus a natural right of property. We have a right to preserve ourselves and in order to do this we must eat, and to do this we must cultivate our land but won’t unless we all have the right to what we produce. Although anybody can produce on his or her land, not everybody can. This then leads to inequalities because people will sell their land to someone who can produce in turn for food or money. This means someone will have more land than anybody else, but this inequality reduces amount of scarcity and benefits everybody. Locke concludes this by saying that reasonable people would create money even though it creates inequality. He then claims that it would be legitimate because it is in everybody’s good because it utilizes human beings self-nature to create wealth for everybody.
Adam smith goes along with Locke and says that under proper conditions, capitalism is more efficient that any other possible economic arrangement. Everyone benefits and all the inequalities are justified and legit. He mentions proper conditions, and without thee capitalism is inefficient. People are often more hurt than helped and inequalities are illegitimate, unfair and oppressive.
The proper conditions include a well-regulated, competitive market where individual self-interest and individual greed has to work for the welfare of the community. There is competition for products and workers and always the need for greater profit while outselling the other competitors. He claims that if someone creates a better product that benefits society, the resulting inequality is good for those that deserve it. This increases better working conditions for workers of the companies as well as higher pay, so indeed everybody does benefit.