Words: 1370
Hobbes Human nature since the beginning of time has been to fight for control over things someone found useful . To “control” something that would make yourself powerful or even god-like. Most have tried by force , fear and even love to control various things from land and weapons and even smaller things like rice and water . It has taken figures with strong mentality to pause the everyday fight for key essentials to focus and sometimes even dedicate their life to the humans and their nature as a whole.
Normally throughout an average lifespan it would sometimes occur to you hat things are often bigger than the small things we occupy ourselves with for the most part . However the three individuals I have been researching and reading on have changed lives and the world and have permanently stamped their this onto human nature altogether Machiavelli believed in the idea that all should be ruled under fear. Hobbes believed all should be ruled by one.
Locke, on the other hand, didn’t believe in either as he believed in power to the people. I agree with in all three of their beliefs, I would have to say the philosophy that makes the most sense would be, Thomas Hobbler’s philosophy for human nature. Humanity, a big subject in Thomas Hobbes’ philosophic thoughts on why humans are the way they are. Thomas Hobbes’ perception on humanity is the most accurate out of the three philosophers.
He believes all humans are self interested and selfish. Hobbes believed that all humans by nature are selfish, he calls this the state of nature. Though the idea may seem crass at first glance, you can see that it begins to grow more truthful as you become more aware of your actions and the reasons to why you act on anything. The idea that all humans are self interested can be seen in anything even n acts that would seem selfless could find its way back to the state of nature.
This connects back to the idea of sovereignty, in were humans are always going through a power struggle, it’s a power struggle because people are self interested thus always at war, “If men are naturally in a state of war, why do they always carry arms and why do they have keys to lock their doors? ” (Hobbes) This is similar to the belief Machiavelli has of people as he believes “the nature of man is that man possesses both good and bad qualities, but will lean towards his own self-interests when all wings are equal: thus man is a fickle creature. (Machiavelli)Machiavellian does Justice to Hobbes’ philosophy, making it that much more universal as another great thinker has come to a similar conclusion. Why do we need government? The question itself is like asking why we need order, structure, or law. Any man would answer something along the lines of; government is the foundation for human morality, the reason we don’t steal and or kill one another is because government is the necessary parent to our world of reckless teenagers.
In this case, I believe in both Hobbes and Locker’s ideals, as Hobbes believes in totalitarian government why Locke is more on the side of a democracy. I believe a strict government is the road to living a life where matters such as theft and murder are not a constant bind on the minds of people. Despite believing that I don’t think any good can come from a totalitarian system, I would give this argument to Locke because a government where the people nave a say could make all the difference in the sovereign’s effectiveness.
This relates back to the idea of sovereignty and humanity, as people by nature are ‘selfish’ they most keel don’t like being told what to do so a totalitarian can be one’s facade. For one to truly have completely and absolute power one must first show the citizens that you are an altruistic people’s person, as empathy and sadly deception are components of being a good leader. Who has the ideal government structure? Truthfully, the U. S. Seems to have most effective government as it keeps our country together throughout our many catastrophic episodes.
In the context our three philosophers who would come close and or make the most sense to their philosophy? In a process f elimination, I would say Niccole Machiavelli and John Locke would be the two to not make the most sense to me. Machiavelli doesn’t suck me into his philosophy as he believes fear is the way to keep the government running, “she knows her force where there is no organized strength to resist her” There are many cases in where ruling with fear has failed.
One instance where Machiavellian philosophy has failed is in the era of Nazi Germany where Doll Hitler a man who was feared by people all over Europe causing people to flee Germany was taken out by rival countries at the peak f his empire. Another would example of failed despotism would be Bonito Mussolini who like Hitler he reigned with fear and tyranny in communist Italy and was executed by his very own people.
Machiavellian philosophy was put to the test and there seems to be some holes in his argument. Locke doesn’t fully bring credibility in his philosophy. He believes in democratic ideals, and inquiry of the government that is really the base for all of western thought about authority, “Locker’s writings helped found modern Western philosophy. ” (Locke) Though he does seems to get it right here, you must first explore in depth what Locker’s philosophy and Just what kind of a man he is.
Locke was a rather rich man during his life and came to the conclusion somewhere in his life, that poor people are not human as they would do irrational and bizarre things to survive “What worries you, masters you. “(Locke) So in that sense if his whole philosophy about the individual is obstructed by the idea that humans under distress wouldn’t be considered human because of currency is questionable. That small idea makes me question his whole way of thinking as lack of currency and even being penny is such a natural state of being and can’t be the thing that makes us lesser humans.
Thus, through the process of elimination Hobbes seems to take it, although his ideals are rather conservative and rash he seems to be the only one out of the three who does not either contradict himself or hasn’t been seen in history where his ideals seemed refutable. I believe Thomas Hobbes’ philosophy makes the most sense in the determination of sovereignty and human nature. Despite his reasoning, I don’t fully agree with the idea of a totalitarian government, Hough he has convinced me that possibly all people are in someway ultimately self interested.
The idea of the totalitarian government makes sense in some hues as “Society is tyranny’ (Hobbes) and a democratic government could have it’s flaws, but I neither believe that any philosophy alone could be the answer. I can say only Hobbes was closer to the answer for a perfect government than Locke or Machiavelli and brings it to light with realistic examples. Locke, though he contradicts himself in the idea of the individual, Leads to the idea of the U. S. ‘s separation of power possibly his hilltop’s was ultimately realized but in a collision between himself and Hobbes.
I say this because if our government has upwards of 200 years, could it be they themselves created a government using the ideas of Hobbes, Machiavelli and Locke? The president, the Congress, and the Judicial branch; The president playing the role of Hobbes’ philosophy of totalitarian power, the congress playing the role of Locker’s Philosophy of the individual, and the Judicial branch playing the role of Machiavellian philosophy of fear. Smith, Cyril. “Karl Marx and the future of the human”Towards a modern state. Towards a Monomer, 2002, PDF file