Essay About Human Nature And Distribution Of Power

Renaissance Thinkers
Essay Preview: Renaissance Thinkers
Report this essay
The conceptualization of civil society by Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau
differ in ways that affect liberties and distribution of power. While many of each individual
arguments are convincing on their own, none have a comprehensive approach that seem to be
able to hold its own in practical application. However, as we observe the modern world today,
it is clear that a combination of these proposed methods to organize civil society endures while
facing the harsh tests of reality, escaping the perfect world of theory.
In the Prince, Machiavelli presents a ruler who is ruthless, which in turn makes him
efficient. The prince is primarily concerned with assuring stability and sovereignty of his
reign and society while he rules. The ruler murders, lies, and steals in order to accomplish
what must be done. “Leader virtue” is what Machiavelli presents as “the ability of the prince
to carve from disorder and uncertainty of fortune a political order that incurs on peoples
continuing support for the princes regime.”(87) It is interesting that “it is not always
possible or likely that the prince can sustain moral values traditionally considered
essential in normal, day-to-day settingsthe science of Machiavelli is derived from a study
whose main objective is to acquire power and to use it to create orderly societies that
serve peoples vital interests.”(87) In this way, the famous phrase, “the ends justifies the
means” derives its significance. The ruler can use whatever tactics and methods to
accomplish his goals as long as his society is kept happy and their material possessions safe.
With the ruler not bound by high sounding ideals or contraints, he is rendered flexible that
empowers him to be able to control many aspects of his society to keep it stable and secure.
Departing from the cold, practical, and high-ideal-lacking method of Machiavelli, in
Hobbess central thoery, we are introduced to the ideals of liberalism and individual freedom.
Before describing Hobbes specific concept of how civil society must be, understanding his
reasoning to reach such a conclusion is vital. Let us observe Hobbes view of human nature
in a society-less world. Essentially, all individuals in such a conditions have theoretically the
ability to do anything that they saw fit, which includes stealing and murdering in order to obtain
what one needs in order to survive. It is clear that in this state, chaos, or “condition of
war,”(127) would ensue with no sense of peace or stability. Hobbes essentially is commenting
that human nature tends to be destructive when left unchecked, and it is from this very notion
that he develops the idea of a “consented” monarch or an aristocracy(or any institution of
governing power) that would watch over human activity on the whole to protect from themselves
the destructive consequences of possessing unlimited freedom.
However, the very curious and interesting problem of Hobbess approach to solve this
problem of human nature seem to have the certain potential of undermining its own cause. This
is because the “consented” governmental power, once given this official consent by the people,
is forever and absolutely invested with this power which cannot be taken away. A monarch with
unchecked power is certainly bound to turn into a tyrant eventually, whether is be a disinterest in
protecting civil society or a disinterested heir to the throne. And we can make this conclusion
because Hobbes himself claimed that once humans are given unlimited freedom, or in our
monarchs case, unlimited power, humans will use it eventually to cause destruction. “The main
problem with Hobbess argument is that Hobbess concept of civil society embraces a very
powerful state that threatens the freedom that his view of civil society defends.”(127) Hobbess
creates a solution to a problem and then destroys it!
Thankfully, Lockes argues against this paradoxical approach of Hobbes, while
maintaining the virtue of natural rights and liberty. Locke proposed a state in which powers
would be separated–the federal, legislative, and executive branches would be created in order
keep a system of balances that would secure the safety of the peoples liberty. Delue states
that, “the difference between Hobbes and Locke on this issue is that the latter did not see this
power [Hobbess king] as placed, without limits, into the hands of the executive.”(153) Locke
specifically