Abstract The paper discusses how Machiavelli and Hobbes analyze the dictates of governing institutions, religion and ethics. The paper shows how these two philosophers often agree, but differ on varying principles of practicality for humanisticgoverning bodies. The paper shows the complexity of rational thought that exists between Hobbes and Machiavelli and explains how the nature of ethics becomes a dynamic that divides them.
From the Paper "The manner of politics that one can see in The Prince by Machiavelli reveals much about the cruel, and often-lawless manner of governing that seeks to suppress the people being ruled by their leaders. He makes little argument for unrealistic manners of ethical guidance that might smooth over these forceful behaviors of the leading class. By these means he tells us much about how rules matter little in the quest for power and dominance over the lesser classes. In starting, Machiavelli refused to be deflected by utopian dreams or romantic hopes and by questions of right and wrong or good and bad in government. This is how Hobbes and Machiavelli compare, since they both seek realism in their quest to discover the best and most efficient way to rule."
Abstract This paper examines the potential link between the philosophies of Hobbes, Machiavelli and the Ancient Greeks. It looks at how the form of "democracy" we ascribe to the ancient Greeks was no more a democracy than we have anywhere in the world today. It evaluates how in the eras separating Plato from Hobbes, human nature has not really changed a great detail in the hope of finding a better destiny and how man is still reaching for a form of equality especially in politics. In particular, it analyzes the political beliefs of Hobbes and Machiavelli.
From the Paper "Hobbes, for some reason, feels that there is more equality among men, both physically and intellectually. He sees ?infallible rules, called Science. . .as being not a native faculty, born with us. . .I find yet a greater equality amongst men, than that of strength" (Hobbes, 1985, p. 183). It is interesting that in the middle of the Seventeenth century, Hobbes would find that there seems to be more equality in terms of reason or intellect than in strength. But, what he seems to be really getting at is that there is an equality of ability, not necessarily of fulfilling that intellectual ability."
Abstract The paper discusses Corporate Governance and states that McDonalds has a well-established and well thought out code. The paper explains that the code is successful due to the fact that executives of McDonald's are paid using an incentive based on a compensation scheme. The paper further states that the basis of McDonalds' entire business is that is ethical, truthful and dependable and that it has a solid, permanent and constructive ethical program. A compensation table of executive officers of 2006 is included with the paper.
Outline:
Company Profile
Corporate Governance at McDonald's
Board Composition
Executive Compensation
Proxy Results at last shareholder meeting
Conclusion
From the Paper ""The executive compensation for the executive officers at McDonald's is done by the Compensation Committee which is a standing committee of the Board of Directors. Its task is to determine the compensation of all executive officers as well as the compensation of other employees as the Committee may decide. It consists of at least three members who are appointed by the Board of Directors. Furthermore they should set up a meeting schedule for each year.''
Abstract This paper examines, compares and contrasts the theories of Thomas Hobbes and Niccolo Machiavelli regarding man and politics. The paper focuses on Machiavelli's formulation of human nature, virtue and politics. Then the paper looks at Hobbes' dissatisfaction with Machiavellian political theory.
From the Paper "Two of the best known modern philosophers who have taken up questions regarding man and politics or man and his life in civil society are Niccolo Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes. Machiavelli writing almost ...."
Abstract The paper discusses how few American presidents in modern times have been as reviled as Richard Nixon. Despite a number of foreign and domestic triumphs, Nixon will be forever associated with the Watergate scandal of the early 1970s. The paper reviews the event leading to Nixon's ultimate demise and considers to what extent the thirty-seventh president of the United States exhibited the sort of behavior similar to the sort of governingprinciples immortalized in Niccolo Machiavelli.
From the Paper "Strangely enough, while it is easy (and popular) to portray Nixon as being Machiavellian in his pursuit and consolidation of power, the real truth of the matter is that Nixon is but a poor example of Machiavelli's "Prince"; in fact, Nixon was often the exact opposite of what Niccolo Machiavelli considered a capable and forward-thinking ruler."
Abstract This paper discusses Niccolo Machiavelli's comments on government, human nature and society in his books, "The Prince" and "Discourses". It describes the most significant parallel between Machiavelli's principles on government and his principles in the humanist tradition. It then shows the points of disagreement between the humanists and Machiavelli. Finally, the paper suggests that his philosophy still applies to modern government.
From the Paper "Niccolo Machiavelli comments on government, human nature, and society in his books, The Prince and Discourses. While many of Machiavelli's theories are in concordance with the humanist philosophical movement, many of his theories including his overall perception of the human nature diverge from humanism. In The Prince, Machiavelli examines the principles of political leaders and proposes ways in which aspiring political leaders can acquire the most political success possible. The Prince reflects Machiavelli's humanistic mentality in that he is well versed in Latin, he deliberately excludes religious content, and places high emphasis on the potential of the individual. However, his philosophy strays from the humanist tradition when he discusses the general moral depravity of most humans. Humanists typically focused on human dignity and pride in moral thought and behavior. Machiavelli on the other hand, proposed that the ends justify the means regardless of morality. Similarly, in Discourses, Machiavelli focused on the importance of freedom of citizenry above all else. He included graphic accounts of the tragic fate of previous governments in which freedom was restricted. Machiavelli, like his humanist contemporaries, had faith in the ability of humans to make rational decisions concerning their government and ruler. Discourses and The Prince contain both humanist ideals and non-humanist ideals; as a result, his revolutionary and ingenious works have received great fame and scrutiny since his death."
Abstract This political study analyzes the major ethical and moral foundations for governing that reside in the philosophy of Thomas Hobbes, Aristotle, and Machiavelli. By understanding the premise of an ethical government in Aristotle's point view, the writer shows that the basis for a republican ethical and morality systems are a function of good political structures in government. However, the writer points out that Thomas Hobbes and Machiavelli disagree with this point of view, finding that self-preservation for elites is the foundation of most governing bodies through the reality of human nature. Further, the writer notes that aside from the dogmatic philosophy of Aristotle that seeks to propose ethical standards in government, both Hobbes and Machiavelli are realists in their understanding of human nature and the often-cruel conflicts that reside within the quest for power.
From the Paper "... the critical philosophical premise to human nature that ultimately helps one realize how persons that attain power utilize it not for the greater good, but for the self-preservation of the person that is not satisfied with their own portion of power. In this manner, Hobbes provides the deeper insight into governing bodies and how they function, since it is often the issue of self-preservation that often dictates government, whether it be called republican, monarchy, etc., and that power forces men to abide by constitutions and rules only for their own greater personal success. "
Abstract This paper examines how Thomas Hobbes and Machiavelli gave us some highly acclaimed philosophical works, which contain their views on every subject connected with politics, government and rights of citizens. It looks at how Thomas Hobbes was positively influenced by Machiavelli in his views on politics and government. It also looks at how Machiavelli in his book "The Prince" focused on factors such as fear and force when describing the attributes that he felt a ruler must possess in order to rule effectively.
From the Paper "Human nature was another very important subject of the political theories of both Hobbes and Machiavelli. Hobbes and Machiavelli's views on human nature cannot be seen as aligned to each other since the latter basically focused on wretchedness of human soul while the former was more concerned about the factors that influenced or basically created the human nature. According to Hobbes human nature could be explained in terms of voluntary and involuntary motions. (p. 118) He was of the view that men are motivated by passion such as anger, hunger, despair, joy etc. This resulted in action which could be termed either good or evil based on how it affects mankind. Machiavelli on the other hand did not believe in Hobbes' implied equality of men. "
Abstract 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)."
Abstract The paper discusses Hobbes' ideas of leadership as the means to a good society by manipulating or instilling fear and Machiavelli's emphasis on how a ruler should appeal to human nature in creating order. The paper explains how both theorists believed that the natural state of affairs without leadership was bound to be chaos. The paper discusses how Hobbes saw political violence as a clear sign of a social order falling back into the natural state of chaos, just as Machiavelli perceived this violence as a sign of a ruler having failed to do what was required to preserve and protect a social order.
Outline:
Introduction
Machiavelli on the Ruler
The Good Society
Conclusion
From the Paper "Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527) and Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) knew turbulent times. Machiavelli experienced the 1498 French invasion of Florence and the flight of the Medici family, and Hobbes's views owed to the very violent English Civil War, his The Leviathan's ideas said to have been achieved by the War's time in the human personality as motivated by fear. This influenced his ideas of leadership as the means to a good society by manipulating or instilling fear. Machiavelli shared an emphasis on how a ruler should appeal to human nature in creating order. The natural state of affairs without leadership was bound to be chaos."
Tags: political, violence, social, order, chaos, ruler, power, government
Abstract This paper discusses the conditions on which an interloper can be accepted or rejected by the citizens of a newly captured country. The conditions are based on the philosophical works of Thomas Hobbes and Machiavelli. The paper shows that both Hobbes and Machiavelli believe that it is futile to reject someone off hand because such rejection would only result in waste of energy and nothing else. They feel that there are some important attributes which make a ruler strong and worthy of our respect and thus he should be rejected only if he doesn?t possess the right attributes.
From the Paper "A ruler who is able to command respect whether through the use of force or otherwise need not be rejected because he is likely to prove more beneficial for the country than the weak leader he overthrew. In the light of our current understanding of politics, we may find this argument rather strange in nature. But the truth is that today we do not think in terms of what is good for our country and rather become irrationally sentimental when someone threatens to overthrow our government. We must remember that as long as a ruler is capable of running the country well and is respected by his people, he need not be rejected. In the case of an interloper, we must first study the situation from all possible angles before deciding on our next course of action."
This paper examines the life and accomplishments of philosopher Niccolo Machiavelli while also defining the true meaning of humanism and its relevance to Machiavelli's view on religion and the world in general.
Abstract This paper presents clear and specific examples and lessons learned by Machiavelli which greatly impacted his views on life and religion which garnered him a reputation as a brilliant and well respected philosopher. The writer of this paper contends and proves that Machiavelli was also a religious humanist by focusing on his impact and involvement in both the political and religious arenas. This paper examines the early roots of humanism and religious humanism which have been traced back to the Renaissance era. This paper defines humanism as a naturalistic view that rejects the supernatural or ideas that cannot be proven by logic or science. This paper examines the views and opinions of Machiavelli who clearly thought things through very much in style associated with the humanistic philosophy which promotes self thought and reflection, while urging others to think for themselves.
Table of Contents:
Introduction
Niccolo Machiavelli Humanist Machiavelli as a Humanist Conclusion
Works Cited
From the Paper "Machiavelli would certainly concur with the notion that religion creates distortions and ironies. But Humanists as a group also have underlying problems within their own ranks because they do not agree on certain facts. For example, Modern Humanism splits into two sub-categories, secular and religious. The dispute is between these factions. "The fact is that many Protestants, Catholics, and Jews--along with secular humanists--believe in and teach the theory of evolution in biology courses." Ironically, Secular and Religious Humanists seem to share similar worldviews and therefore follow similar principles which was confirmed when each factions created and signed the Humanist Manifesto I in 1933 and the revision in 1973. Religious Humanists who are secular have an understanding that human beings do have personal and social needs."
Abstract This paper examines how Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527) and Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) can be assessed as theorists influenced by direct exposure to political failure and its resulting chaos. It looks as how Machiavelli suggested that the prince was a person who knew he could not have something for nothing, whereas Hobbes was inclined to place the citizen in similar shoes, needing to adjust to a directed social order aware that without small compromises, he would lose the order so needed and wanted to achieve his ambitions. The paper concludes that in the early 21st century, there is much in international political life to remind us of Machiavelli's "The Prince" and Hobbes' "The Leviathan" in different demonstrations of both leadership and political failure and how war, anarchy, alienation and social chaos do seem the prices of poor leadership approaches and the failure to provide what is needed.
Outline:
Introduction
Machiavelli on Political Failure
Hobbes on Political Failure
Lessons of being a Bad Leader, or a Bad Subject
Concluding Remarks
From the Paper "Both Machiavelli and Hobbes had few illusions about human nature and the difficulties of governance. Machiavelli saw political failure as owing directly to the nature of the leader and whether or not he was a prince, in a person astute and evolved enough to wield power, and as Hobbes agreed in places but also expected subjects to understand that beyond a symbolic leader they needed to see their own culpability when political systems fell to pieces, that they were merely parts of the same organic social machine. Political failure meant that one party of another was not complying as necessary to make the machine function and that this should be recognized. In other words, whatever kind of leader or ruler was produced, human unwillingness to put cooperation ahead of competition and greed, or a failure to respect the law towards other anarchy would bring political failure's result in the anarchy of which human beings were also much afraid. "
Abstract In this article, the writer notes that the 17th century British political philosopher Thomas Hobbes presented in his Leviathan a theory of justice and political order based on reason. The writer then points out that in the course of his argument, Hobbes creates the figure of the Fool who contradicts Hobbes' theory of justice and social order and advocates in its place a view of society based upon the selfish pursuit of individual advantage. The writer discusses that while Hobbes' Fool is a rhetorical device designed to better allow Hobbes to present his arguments, many of the views Hobbes' attributes to this Fool, resemble those of the Renaissance Italian political philosopher Machiavelli.
From the Paper "The 17th century British political philosopher Thomas Hobbes presented, in his Leviathan, a theory of justice and political order based on reason. In the course of his argument Hobbes creates the figure of the "Fool" who contradicts Hobbes' theory of justice and social order and advocates in its place a view of society based upon the selfish pursuit of individual advantage. While Hobbes' Fool is a rhetorical device designed to better allow Hobbes to present his arguments, many of the views Hobbes attributes to this Fool resemble those of the Renaissance Italian political philosopher Machiavelli."
Abstract This paper discusses the ethics of government secrecy in the Bush Administration. The paper discusses the Freedom of Information Act, the post-911 immigration detainees, government withholding information from the public post-911, and Cheney's refusal to disclose the names of those in his energy task force. The paper puts these actions into an ethical context by quoting Machiavelli and Hobbes.
From the Paper "United Nations analyst Ian Thomas tried to get a thirty-year old map of Africa from the National Archives in March 2002 in order to plan a relief mission. He could not get the maps because the United States government no longer makes them public. An environmentalist, John Coequyt, was denied access to an online database of listings of chemical plants that violate pollution laws from the Environmental Protection Agency. Kate Martin, a civil rights lawyer, asked for a court order the names of the foreigners detained since the September 11th terrorist attacks and was told by the Justice Department that that information was secret."
