Comparing And Contrasting Of Niccolo Machiavelli And John Locke Views

COMPARING AND CONTRASTING OF TWO THEORISTS VIEWS 1

Comparing and Contrasting of Niccolo Machiavelli and John Locke Views

Name

Professor

Course

Institution

COMPARING AND CONTRASTING OF TWO THEORISTS VIEWS 2

Comparing and Contrasting of Niccolo Machiavelli and John Locke Views

Introduction

Locke and Machiavelli are two theorists who are responsible for some of the elements

in most governments across the world today. Their theories have influenced the society on

many ways such as how governments or states should be run. The nature and form of most

governments have borrowed some certain elements in their theories.

Machiavelli best known work is the book II Principe. He came up with the prince

theory where an effective ruler should do anything in his power to remain in power.

Machiavelli did not believe in the traditionally target audience of a hereditary prince, rather,

he believed in a “new prince.”

He illustrated that a ruler must balance the interest of a

variety of institutions in which the people are accustomed. Machiavelli also believed that

moral corruption was essential for the social benefits of security and stability. As such, he

believed that private and public morality should be understood differently. He further added

that a ruler should not only be concerned with his reputation but also be willing to act

immorally at the correct time. Machiavelli as a political theorist emphasized the occasional

deceit or the use of brute force to exterminate the entire noble family to wade off any

challenge to the ruler.

John Locke’s political theory is founded on social contract. Locke believed that all

men are free in the state of nature. He argued that the state of nature is governed by the law.

According to Locke, human nature is characterised by tolerance and reason. Conversely, he

Dyer, Megan K., and Cary J. Nederman. "Machiavelli against Method: Paul Feyerabend's Anti-Rationalism

and Machiavellian Political ‘Science’." History of European Ideas 42, no. 3 (2016): 430-445.

COMPARING AND CONTRASTING OF TWO THEORISTS VIEWS 3

believed that human nature allowed human beings to be selfish. According to Locke, all

people were independent and equal in a natural state and everyone had the right to defend his

liberty, life health, or possessions. According to Locke’s arguments, the sole right to defend

in the state of nature was not enough. To resolve these conflicts in a civil way, people

established a civil society with the help from the government.

Additionally, Locke was an

advocate for government separation of powers. His beliefs were that revolution is not only a

right but also an obligation in certain circumstances. The purpose of this paper is to analysing

the theories of Machiavelli and John Locke while comparing their views on the nature of

mankind, capitalism, justice, liberty, revolution and the relationship between a citizen and the

state.

Nature of Mankind

According to Machiavelli, he believes that mankind are sinful. He in fact argues that

man should be sinful because of its social benefits of security and stability. Machiavelli

believes that for a ruler to serve his people properly, he needs to be corrupt but morally. As

such, Machiavelli always advocated for a government that is not honest.

Additionally,

unfairness was a welcomed attribute for the rulers. He also believed that the use of brute

force was essential for the formation of a government as well as protecting it from various

elements that might try to topple the government. The philosophy that Machiavelli therefore

advocated for takes human being as being evil in nature. For instance, he believed that the

Dunn, John. "The Impact of Political Theory". Political Studies Review. 13 (4) (2015): 494-499.

Hankins, James. "Machiavelli, Civic Humanism, and the Humanist Politics of Virtue." italian culture 32, no. 2

(2014): 98-109.

COMPARING AND CONTRASTING OF TWO THEORISTS VIEWS 4

presence of a member of a noble family may threaten the leadership of a ruler. Therefore, he

saw no evilness in using brute force or deceit for the extermination of an entire noble family.

For Locke, he believed that the nature of human kind was characterised by tolerance

and reason. Locke did not see mankind as being sinful. The tolerance and reason that drove

the people were backed by their good hearted goals or objectives. For example, he believed

that revolution was not a right but an obligation during certain times. Revolution can be done

in many ways and some may result in the deaths of citizen. As such, Locke saw man as

wanting a state that was good or a society that people lived peacefully. This can therefore

mean that Locke saw mankind as being inherently good.

Machiavelli strongly believed in governments control over its people. He saw that a

government was necessary to keep people in line and ensure that there was security and

stability. His determination of having a government can be seen by his argument that a ruler

should be immoral sometime to have a stable government. In contrast, Locke did not believe

in governments control over its people. Locke believed that the state of nature is governed by

the law which is reason. When this law is taken into context, no person has the right to harm

another person, liberty, or property. Locke also argued that human beings have the ability to

understand what is right and what is wrong. As such, a person can differentiate what is lawful

and what is unlawful so that he or she can solve conflicts. Locke therefore thought that the

monarch should be overthrown of its abuse of power and trust that the people had given

bestowed upon them

Capitalism

Grant, Ruth W. "John Locke on Custom's Power and Reason's Authority."The Review of Politics 74,

no. 04 (2012): 607-629.

COMPARING AND CONTRASTING OF TWO THEORISTS VIEWS 5

Locke is considered to be the defender of unrestricted capitalism. One of his attributes

that cements this notion is his remarks that a man should only appropriate what he can use

before the lot gets spoilt. He believes that people should have what is sufficient for them only

and leave enough as well for others. Locke also adds that a person should only appropriate

for what he has sowed by use of his labour and property. In contrast, Machiavelli believes in

capitalism. He believes that the rulers need to have control of its people through various

means to maintain stability and security. Some of the means include the use of brute force in

taking over the properties of other people.

Locke considers restricted capitalism as a force for imprisonment by the government.

One of the ides brought forward by him is that no man should take what he has produced by

the use of his property or labour. People having wanting only what is sufficient for them

means that other people who don’t have enough can get a share. According to Locke, all

people were equal and no one had the right to take another person’s property. As such, it can

be identified that capitalism to Locke is more of a force for imprisonment than a force for

liberation. In contrast, Machiavelli’s philosophy favoured capitalism. For example, his Prince

Theory allows for immoral acts. Capitalism to him can be force for liberation and not one for

imprisonment.

Justice

Machiavelli philosophy has little room for justice. Most of his writings focused on

unfairness, dishonest, and violence.

Machiavelli according to scholars was known to glorify

instrumentality in state building. This is an approach which embodied the saying “The ends

justify the means.” For example, his Prince Theory saw that violence might be necessary for

Cerella A., and Gallo E. "Machiavelli reloaded: Perceptions and misperceptions of the 'Prince of

realism'". International Politics. 53, no. 4 (2016): 435-446.

COMPARING AND CONTRASTING OF TWO THEORISTS VIEWS 6

the stabilization of power or the successful introduction of new legal institution. Machiavelli

had little trust in the justice system and his way was a using force or deceit to get ones way

through. However, this was only on the part of the ruler. According to Machiavelli, no one

was above the ruler, not even justice.

Locke however believes in justice. He believes that men give some of their rights to

themselves for the exact retribution and in return for the impartial justice which is backed by

that force. According to Locke, justice is necessary for a society. As such, men retain that

right to liberty and live but again, they gain the right to impartial protection. The protection is

for their property and to just. As such, the creation of this justice mechanism is what brought

up a government. Locke believes that everyone is accountable for a wrong doing, even s

government and that is why he argues that revolution is a right if not an obligation.

Machiavelli however, sees justice as a weakness to a ruler and that is why he advocates for

violence and deceit.

Liberty

Locke does not believe that personal property is essential for liberty. Liberty consists

of the political and social freedom to which members in a certain society or community are

entitled. According to Locke, people are independent and equal in the community. He adds

that people should only have what is sufficient for them. Locke further argues that nobody

has the power to take the possession of another individual.

Conversely, he stated that the

state has a duty to protect the property of a person. As such, it can be identified that personal

property is not essential for liberty. All people are equal and each one has liberty to do what

one wants. Similarly, Machiavelli philosophy does not suggest that personal property is

Grant, Ruth W. "John Locke on Custom's Power and Reason's Authority."The Review of Politics 74,

no. 04 (2012): 607-629.

COMPARING AND CONTRASTING OF TWO THEORISTS VIEWS 7

necessary for liberty. However, the people that are in power are free to do what they wish.

According to Machiavelli Prince Theory, the rulers with their personal property are at liberty

to any action. Those that have little personal possessions are at the mercy of the rulers, or

rather, the rich.

Machiavelli believes that government is a tool in which it can be used to suppress

liberty if need be. For example, the mere thought of a noble family having power is proof

enough for that family to be exterminated. Machiavellian’s political theory is based on an

effective government which does whatever is necessary to stay in command. As such, it can

be used to suppress liberty of the citizens. Locke however believes that the government is a

force to protect liberty. He argues that people men give some of their rights to themselves in

return for the impartial justice which is backed by that force. This deprivation of right for

protection is what forms a government which helps protect their property. Locke believes that

government is a means to just. As such, government is a force to protect liberty according to

Locke but for Machiavellian philosophy, it can be used as a force to suppress liberty.

Revolution

Locke believes that revolution is a right. He also believes that it is an obligation if the

need arises. According to Locke, when a government starts to abuse power and mistreats the

people, citizens are obliged to revolt against such a government.

Conversely, when a

government interferes with personal property, liberty of a person, and right, people have a

right to revolt. Revolutions are justified if government goes against the wishes of the people,

or rather, fails to work in line with their interest, welfare or wellbeing. One example of a

revolution is in Syria where citizens felt that the government was mistreating them. The

Dobson, Andrew. "Political theory in a closed world: reflections on William Ophuls, liberalism and

abundance." Environmental Values 22, no. 2 (2013): 241-259.

COMPARING AND CONTRASTING OF TWO THEORISTS VIEWS 8

revolution started slowly but currently the revolution has become a militia targeting people

from all countries and carrying out external attacks. The root of the issue was Syria’s

president Bashaar al-Assad who did not want to step down after anti-government protests by

Syrians. Machiavellian political theory does not believe in revolutions. Machiavelli argues

that a ruler should do anything possible to stay in power, even if that act is immoral.

Locke believes that revolution is inevitable. As long as the interests of the people are

kept safe, the government will run smoothly. Locke explained that the government was

formed as a result of people giving up a certain amount of the rights so that they can be

protected. However, any slight deviation from this responsibility bestowed upon them will be

met with a revolution by the people. Machiavelli however sees a revolution as being a ruler’s

weakness. A ruler should do anything in his power to exterminate any person who seem to go

against his believes or laws.

Relationship between citizen and state

Machiavelli believes that a citizen is obligated to perform all the task required of him

by the state. He believes that all citizens should respect the ruler and hold him in the highest

esteem. This can be seen in his Prince Theory were any person that is powerful and has a

chance of dethroning the ruler is eliminated with immediate effect.

The citizen should also

provide for the state in personal property to strengthen the rulers rule. In contrast, Locke

believed that a citizen’s obligation to the state is to follow all the rules. The state was formed

as a result of the people giving their rights to receive protection. As such, people need to

respect the laws aid forward so that it can reflect the rights they had given up.

Strauss, Danie. "The reformational legacy within political theory". Journal for Contemporary History. 35 no. 2

(2010): 1-19.

COMPARING AND CONTRASTING OF TWO THEORISTS VIEWS 9

Locke believes that the state has an obligation to its citizen. Its obligation is to keep

the people safe. Conversely, Locke believes that the state is responsible for carrying out

justice on citizens that have been offended. The state is also concerned with protection of

citizens’ liberty and personal property according to Locke. Machiavelli believes that the

states obligation to its citizen is security and stability. This is the reason why he prefers the

ruler to be immoral if it means that it will be of good to its citizens.

The theories brought forward by the two theorists have certain similarities as well as

differences. Some of the similarities between Machiavelli and Locke’s political theories are

that both accept that the state has an obligation to its citizens. Both believe that the citizens

require security from the state and stability. In Locke’s case, people require protection for

their personal properties. Conversely, the two theorists believe that human nature has self-

preservation in times of distress. Fear is a common tool for the two theorists in ensuring there

is stability in the state. Machiavelli uses violence to keep competitors at bay while Locke’s

political theory uses a government formed by the people through surrendering their rights to

ensure there is protection in the community.

Both theorists also believe that revolution can

happen. In Machiavelli’s case however, the revolution can be suppressed through destroying

of people who have the capability of dethroning the ruler. In Locke’s case, revolution can

happen any moment as long as the people feel the government has over-stepped its mandate.

Many differences exist between the political theories brought forward by Locke and

Machiavelli. One such difference that exists between the two political theories is while

Machiavelli’s theory explores the qualities of a good leader; Locke focuses on the

relationship between the government and the state. Locke explores the reason why a

Cerella A., and Gallo E. "Machiavelli reloaded: Perceptions and misperceptions of the 'Prince of

realism'". International Politics. 53, no. 4 (2016): 435-446.

COMPARING AND CONTRASTING OF TWO THEORISTS VIEWS 10

government was formed. It also discusses what kind of relationship exists between the

subjects and the state. Machiavelli however explores the qualities of a good leader and what

that leader can do to stay in power for as long as possible. As such, while Locke theory

discusses that the government should secure the rights of the people, Machiavelli discusses

how violence can be used to lengthen the rulers stay in power.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Machiavelli’s and Locke’s theories have explained properly in which

the governments are run. Most states have borrowed some elements from these theories.

Although the theories are different, some of their aspect shares similarities. The two theories

have a wide application on today’s governments or states due to their great contribution to the

formulation of governments. With a few adjustments, the theories provide some of the best

ways in which a state can be run.

COMPARING AND CONTRASTING OF TWO THEORISTS VIEWS 11

Bibliography

Cerella A., and Gallo E. "Machiavelli reloaded: Perceptions and misperceptions of the 'Prince

of realism'". International Politics. 53, no. 4 (2016): 435-446.

Dobson, Andrew. "Political theory in a closed world: reflections on William Ophuls,

liberalism and abundance." Values Journals 22, no. 2 (2013): 241-259.

Dunn, John. "The Impact of Political Theory". Political Studies Review. 13 (4) (2015): 494-

499.

Dyer, Megan K., and Cary J. Nederman. "Machiavelli against Method: Paul Feyerabend's

Anti-Rationalism and Machiavellian Political ‘Science’." History of European

Ideas 42, no. 3 (2016): 430-445.

Grant, Ruth W. "John Locke on Custom's Power and Reason's Authority."The Review of

Politics 74, no. 04 (2012): 607-629.

Hankins, James. "Machiavelli, Civic Humanism, and the Humanist Politics of Virtue." italian

culture 32, no. 2 (2014): 98-109.

Strauss, Danie. "The reformational legacy within political theory". Journal for Contemporary

History. 35 no. 2 (2010): 1-19.

Place new order. It's free, fast and safe

Paper type

Deadline

Page count

550 words

Total price: $ 15.00

Our customers say

Jeff Curtis

USA, Student

"I'm fully satisfied with the essay I've just received. When I read it, I felt like it was exactly what I wanted to say, but couldn’t find the necessary words. Thank you!"

Ian McGregor

UK, Student

"I don’t know what I would do without your assistance! With your help, I met my deadline just in time and the work was very professional. I will be back in several days with another assignment!"

Shannon Williams

Canada, Student

"It was the perfect experience! I enjoyed working with my writer, he delivered my work on time and followed all the guidelines about the referencing and contents."