Locke, Machiavelli, Hobbes and Rousseau

Paper Summary:

The philosophies of Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau encompass a spectrum of thought on how a state should be governed. This paper discusses how at one end is the cynicism of Machiavelli and, to some extent, Hobbes. Their ideas are countered by the democratic optimism of Locke and Rousseau. It shows how, at the heart of each of these essays is each philosopher's assessment of the fundamental character of people and how much they can be trusted to govern themselves.

From the Paper:

"Throughout The Prince moral codes seem irrelevant to the business of running a state. The survival of the sovereign is the highest priority. At times Machiavelli seems to be writing guidelines for tyrants. According to him, a prince is safer if he is feared rather than loved. It is easier, Machiavelli maintains, for people to offend, or betray, someone they love than someone they fear. How is that fear instilled? "Fear is maintained by a dread of punishment which never fails." ( Santoni 120 ).
In Leviathan , Hobbes, like Machiavelli, stresses the importance of a powerful sovereign, however his philosophy of government seems less tyrannical than that of Machiavelli. "During the time when men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war, and such a war as is of every man against every man." (Santoni 143)."

More papers on Locke, Machiavelli, Hobbes and Rousseau:

• Comparison Essay # 144083 : "Machiavelli, Hobbes and the State"
• Film Review # 42667 : "Machiavelli, Hobbes and Ridley Scott's "Gladiator"
• Comparison Essay # 133386 : "Hobbes and Rousseau on State of Nature"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: