2008
In this paper, you will find four modern time philosophers’ –Niccolo Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau- concerns about life, liberty, property, state, equality and rights of mankind in the nature and in the society. In the first four pages there will be philosophers’ analyses about natural liberties of human species and rights that is provided by the state. At the end of the paper, you can find my opinions about which state would provide more freedom to the person and society.
Before starting the analysis of Niccolo Machiavelli’s (1469-1527) views about human nature, it is important to mention that his definitions about mankind are mainly negative. He sees mankind as evil and self-interested and he emphasizes the unstoppable desires and short-sighted future view of the mankind. Since human nature has insatiable desires, no matter what you give to him, he will not be satisfied and will look for something better or newer. However, he states that mankind’s negative sides are all because of his nature.
“Men are by nature envious” (Discourses, Book 1, page: 59)
In addition, Machiavelli believes that citizens can only be good under good constitutions and laws. From a viewpoint, this suggestion signifies that mankind can be educated despite his calculating and self-interested personality. In his two books, Prince and Discourses, he does not say much about the human nature as much as he mentions about power relations and constitutions.
According to him, the characteristics of humankind which are stated above and the conflicts between common people and powerful people destructs the society and society looks up for solutions for a secure system which can be found in a powerful state. In Machiavelli’s state, headquarters must be decisive, flexible, deceptive and should have the ability to manipulate the insatiable desires and short-sighted view of mankind. Moreover, he states that politic liberty can only flourish under republic but in any way decay of it is inevitable unless there will be a reform. His solutions for an efficient state is a mixed government with ‘checks and balances’.
Similar to Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) also has ‘some’ negative connotations on the nature of humankind. When he wrote his famous book Leviathan, England was in civil war and it has been said that his thoughts about human nature is largely affected during this time. Hobbes sees man as a mechanical object which is a collection of nerves, joints and a heart. This point of view also builds his judgement on human nature and liberty as he defines liberty by saying “liberty is moving without impediments”.
According to Hobbes, human are all equal by nature. It does not matter if you are much stronger than others, there will always be somebody to kill you who is smarter and more intelligent. In his perspective there is always an equality in violence and vulnerability among people and all the struggles come out because of this evenness. So this uncertainty brings need for a state that puts rules and provides security among equal subjects.
For as to the strength of body, the weakest has strength enough to kill the strongest, either by secret machination, or by confederacy with others, that are in the same danger with himself. (Classics of Moral and Political Theory, page: 620)
In addition to natural equality, Hobbes defines mankind as self-interested and he thinks mankind gives more value to himself than others. If his first aim is to get his demands, second aim will be the concern for protecting it. In summary, Hobbes points out self-preservation as the root of mankind’s violent attitudes and this fearful situation will change the state of nature -which is also defined as ‘state of war’ by Hobbes- to state of law.
Hobbes states that the state of nature is a destructive situation of ‘war of all against all’ and with the fear of violent death mankind will demand a social contract that keeps security in society and provides state of law. In Hobbes’ state, different from Machiavelli’s republic, constitution consists of one ruler, metaphorically named ‘Leviathan’. That one ruler becomes the sovereign with the consent of all the society in exchange for full security. Sovereign is a non-removable ruler with limitless power and the contract between the ruler and the society can only end if the sovereign cannot provide the security. The Leviathan, the ruler, must resist both external and internal threats.
John Locke (1643-1704), our third modern philosopher, looks at human kind less pessimistically than Machiavelli and Hobbes. His famous book, Second Treatise on Government is many times seen as a direct response to Hobbes. Like Hobbes, Locke thinks men are all equal by nature but unlike him Locke also adds that mankind is reasonable and capable of living under state of nature or natural law. He claims that natural liberties, peace and mutual love are the characteristics of mankind. On the other hand, mankind’s capability of living under the state of nature or instinct of mutual love do not change the fact that there are uncertainties in human nature. Mankind’s characteristics and uncertainty leads the state of nature to the state of war and a civil government in the following. Needs of constant security and impartial judge make people build a state that will compose the order.
From Locke’s standing point, there are three things that makes human a ‘human’: life, liberty, property. According to him, each individual is equal to each other and all people have the liberty to act as they will. Beside these, property is very important and it is practically his proof for being a mankind. In addition to that, Locke pays attention to the notion of labour. According to him, in one sense labour is the property of mankind and it plays a crucial role in the society.
Though the earth and all inferior creatures be common to all men, yet every man has a "property" in his own "person." This nobody has any right to but himself. The "labour" of his body and the "work" of his hands, we may say, are properly his. (Classics of Moral and Political Theory, page: 746)
Despite the fact that Locke’s government’s main function is to provide order and security against uncertainties in the society, he also insists that government’s another and also important function should be to protect life, liberty, property. According to him, in order to be legitimate, ruler must protect the property of individuals. Moreover his ideal government’s function of securing the orders sounds similar to Hobbes’ government’s but it is crucial to mention that Locke’s ideal type differs from Hobbes’ in giving the society the right to revolution if the government cannot compose the order. It is probably one of the most important differences between these two philosophers’ ideal states. Another important difference is the political authority’s limits. Unlike Hobbes, Locke supposes that limitless political authority brings slavery to society and society’s possible consent for being slave cannot be accepted.
“Man was/is born free; and everywhere he is in chains.” (Social Contract, Vol. IV, page: 131)
Unlike Hobbes’ and Locke’s negative views on human nature, Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) thinks natural man is different from social man. In his viewpoint, natural man is an innocent, ignorant and happy creature unlike its social version’s dependency. When natural man experiences the society, he becomes unhappy and corrupted. Furthermore, Rousseau claims that natural man has two natural abilities: self-love and compassion. Self-love can turn into egoism unless compassion prevents.
According to him, there are certain turning points at history of human nature until civil society’s appearance. First agricultural development happens and humankind works on land. Then he makes money and money creates differences among people. Finally civil society is built with the desire of wealthy people in order to provide their security and save their property against poor people. Beside the security concerns, rich groups also have the chance to justify their wealth upon that society contract. After these steps, rich-poor dualism turns into powerful-weak and lastly master-slave dualism and so this process leads to the unhappiness of mankind.
“There is often a great deal of difference between the will of all and the general will. The latter looks only to the common interest; the former considers private interest and is only a sum of private wills. But take away from these same wills the pluses and minuses that cancel each other out, and the remaining sum of the differences is the general will.” (Social Contract, Vol. IV, page: 146).
In Rousseau’s ideal type of government, the main aim is common good which uses the help of general will. In his definition, general will is something that encourages the well-being of the whole, but it also can conflict with the particular desires of individuals. General will is not the will of majority or minority but the common good of the whole and people who refuse to submit to the general will must be forced to obey. In his system, individuals are always subjects to the rules in the government which is for the good of the society. Being a subject to the rules is something about liberties. When an individual gives up the freedom of natural liberty he acquires civil liberty which is the freedom you get with the social contract. Mankind loses his natural liberty which is the right to get everything he desires and on the other hand what he acquires is civil liberty which is the security and ownership of all he owns.
What is more, Rousseau’s government’s legislating and executive authorities must not be the same which can be defined as separation of powers. Finally, it is important to mention that in his society fathers’ consents to general will does not bind his children.
“The reason why men enter into society, is the preservation of property; and the why they choose and authorize a legislative, is, that there may be laws made, and rules set, as guards and fences to the properties of all members of the society.” (Second Treatise of Civil Government, pg: 682)
In this short, second chapter, you will find my personal thoughts about which society and its order provide more freedom among the four philosophers’ ideal states. In my humble opinion, John Locke’s property preserving ideal state which is also against the limitless political authority should be the one that provides the utmost freedom among all.
First of all, when we think about humankind’s loss of natural liberties in exchange for civil rights in state order, there are more positive points about providing freedom for person and society in Locke’s ideal state than other philosophers’. One of these positive aspects is that Locke is against the limitless political authority which can turn into a tyranny and devastate the society. In example, authority cannot levy or increase taxes without consent of society. If legislators exceed their authority which is gained by consent of society, people have the right to get back their consents and start a revolution.
According to him, political authority should be divided into legislative and executive parts which will prevent the authority be limitless. Moreover, impartial judge mechanism of authority satisfies society’s security needs which are triggered by the self-preservation and self-loving characteristics of mankind. Laws are applied equally to all people and this provides tranquillity among the society.
To sum up, property is the core of the human nature and state’s prior duty is to secure the property of human according to Locke. Besides, life and liberties of mankind which are also topics of today’s agenda are taken into consideration seriously by Locke. With all these being taken into consideration, I suppose Locke’s ideal state is the one that provides more freedom than others’.
In this paper, you will find four modern time philosophers’ –Niccolo Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau- concerns about life, liberty, property, state, equality and rights of mankind in the nature and in the society. In the first four pages there will be philosophers’ analyses about natural liberties of human species and rights that is provided by the state. At the end of the paper, you can find my opinions about which state would provide more freedom to the person and society.
Before starting the analysis of Niccolo Machiavelli’s (1469-1527) views about human nature, it is important to mention that his definitions about mankind are mainly negative. He sees mankind as evil and self-interested and he emphasizes the unstoppable desires and short-sighted future view of the mankind. Since human nature has insatiable desires, no matter what you give to him, he will not be satisfied and will look for something better or newer. However, he states that mankind’s negative sides are all because of his nature.
“Men are by nature envious” (Discourses, Book 1, page: 59)
In addition, Machiavelli believes that citizens can only be good under good constitutions and laws. From a viewpoint, this suggestion signifies that mankind can be educated despite his calculating and self-interested personality. In his two books, Prince and Discourses, he does not say much about the human nature as much as he mentions about power relations and constitutions.
According to him, the characteristics of humankind which are stated above and the conflicts between common people and powerful people destructs the society and society looks up for solutions for a secure system which can be found in a powerful state. In Machiavelli’s state, headquarters must be decisive, flexible, deceptive and should have the ability to manipulate the insatiable desires and short-sighted view of mankind. Moreover, he states that politic liberty can only flourish under republic but in any way decay of it is inevitable unless there will be a reform. His solutions for an efficient state is a mixed government with ‘checks and balances’.
Similar to Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) also has ‘some’ negative connotations on the nature of humankind. When he wrote his famous book Leviathan, England was in civil war and it has been said that his thoughts about human nature is largely affected during this time. Hobbes sees man as a mechanical object which is a collection of nerves, joints and a heart. This point of view also builds his judgement on human nature and liberty as he defines liberty by saying “liberty is moving without impediments”.
According to Hobbes, human are all equal by nature. It does not matter if you are much stronger than others, there will always be somebody to kill you who is smarter and more intelligent. In his perspective there is always an equality in violence and vulnerability among people and all the struggles come out because of this evenness. So this uncertainty brings need for a state that puts rules and provides security among equal subjects.
For as to the strength of body, the weakest has strength enough to kill the strongest, either by secret machination, or by confederacy with others, that are in the same danger with himself. (Classics of Moral and Political Theory, page: 620)
In addition to natural equality, Hobbes defines mankind as self-interested and he thinks mankind gives more value to himself than others. If his first aim is to get his demands, second aim will be the concern for protecting it. In summary, Hobbes points out self-preservation as the root of mankind’s violent attitudes and this fearful situation will change the state of nature -which is also defined as ‘state of war’ by Hobbes- to state of law.
Hobbes states that the state of nature is a destructive situation of ‘war of all against all’ and with the fear of violent death mankind will demand a social contract that keeps security in society and provides state of law. In Hobbes’ state, different from Machiavelli’s republic, constitution consists of one ruler, metaphorically named ‘Leviathan’. That one ruler becomes the sovereign with the consent of all the society in exchange for full security. Sovereign is a non-removable ruler with limitless power and the contract between the ruler and the society can only end if the sovereign cannot provide the security. The Leviathan, the ruler, must resist both external and internal threats.
John Locke (1643-1704), our third modern philosopher, looks at human kind less pessimistically than Machiavelli and Hobbes. His famous book, Second Treatise on Government is many times seen as a direct response to Hobbes. Like Hobbes, Locke thinks men are all equal by nature but unlike him Locke also adds that mankind is reasonable and capable of living under state of nature or natural law. He claims that natural liberties, peace and mutual love are the characteristics of mankind. On the other hand, mankind’s capability of living under the state of nature or instinct of mutual love do not change the fact that there are uncertainties in human nature. Mankind’s characteristics and uncertainty leads the state of nature to the state of war and a civil government in the following. Needs of constant security and impartial judge make people build a state that will compose the order.
From Locke’s standing point, there are three things that makes human a ‘human’: life, liberty, property. According to him, each individual is equal to each other and all people have the liberty to act as they will. Beside these, property is very important and it is practically his proof for being a mankind. In addition to that, Locke pays attention to the notion of labour. According to him, in one sense labour is the property of mankind and it plays a crucial role in the society.
Though the earth and all inferior creatures be common to all men, yet every man has a "property" in his own "person." This nobody has any right to but himself. The "labour" of his body and the "work" of his hands, we may say, are properly his. (Classics of Moral and Political Theory, page: 746)
Despite the fact that Locke’s government’s main function is to provide order and security against uncertainties in the society, he also insists that government’s another and also important function should be to protect life, liberty, property. According to him, in order to be legitimate, ruler must protect the property of individuals. Moreover his ideal government’s function of securing the orders sounds similar to Hobbes’ government’s but it is crucial to mention that Locke’s ideal type differs from Hobbes’ in giving the society the right to revolution if the government cannot compose the order. It is probably one of the most important differences between these two philosophers’ ideal states. Another important difference is the political authority’s limits. Unlike Hobbes, Locke supposes that limitless political authority brings slavery to society and society’s possible consent for being slave cannot be accepted.
“Man was/is born free; and everywhere he is in chains.” (Social Contract, Vol. IV, page: 131)
Unlike Hobbes’ and Locke’s negative views on human nature, Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) thinks natural man is different from social man. In his viewpoint, natural man is an innocent, ignorant and happy creature unlike its social version’s dependency. When natural man experiences the society, he becomes unhappy and corrupted. Furthermore, Rousseau claims that natural man has two natural abilities: self-love and compassion. Self-love can turn into egoism unless compassion prevents.
According to him, there are certain turning points at history of human nature until civil society’s appearance. First agricultural development happens and humankind works on land. Then he makes money and money creates differences among people. Finally civil society is built with the desire of wealthy people in order to provide their security and save their property against poor people. Beside the security concerns, rich groups also have the chance to justify their wealth upon that society contract. After these steps, rich-poor dualism turns into powerful-weak and lastly master-slave dualism and so this process leads to the unhappiness of mankind.
“There is often a great deal of difference between the will of all and the general will. The latter looks only to the common interest; the former considers private interest and is only a sum of private wills. But take away from these same wills the pluses and minuses that cancel each other out, and the remaining sum of the differences is the general will.” (Social Contract, Vol. IV, page: 146).
In Rousseau’s ideal type of government, the main aim is common good which uses the help of general will. In his definition, general will is something that encourages the well-being of the whole, but it also can conflict with the particular desires of individuals. General will is not the will of majority or minority but the common good of the whole and people who refuse to submit to the general will must be forced to obey. In his system, individuals are always subjects to the rules in the government which is for the good of the society. Being a subject to the rules is something about liberties. When an individual gives up the freedom of natural liberty he acquires civil liberty which is the freedom you get with the social contract. Mankind loses his natural liberty which is the right to get everything he desires and on the other hand what he acquires is civil liberty which is the security and ownership of all he owns.
What is more, Rousseau’s government’s legislating and executive authorities must not be the same which can be defined as separation of powers. Finally, it is important to mention that in his society fathers’ consents to general will does not bind his children.
“The reason why men enter into society, is the preservation of property; and the why they choose and authorize a legislative, is, that there may be laws made, and rules set, as guards and fences to the properties of all members of the society.” (Second Treatise of Civil Government, pg: 682)
In this short, second chapter, you will find my personal thoughts about which society and its order provide more freedom among the four philosophers’ ideal states. In my humble opinion, John Locke’s property preserving ideal state which is also against the limitless political authority should be the one that provides the utmost freedom among all.
First of all, when we think about humankind’s loss of natural liberties in exchange for civil rights in state order, there are more positive points about providing freedom for person and society in Locke’s ideal state than other philosophers’. One of these positive aspects is that Locke is against the limitless political authority which can turn into a tyranny and devastate the society. In example, authority cannot levy or increase taxes without consent of society. If legislators exceed their authority which is gained by consent of society, people have the right to get back their consents and start a revolution.
According to him, political authority should be divided into legislative and executive parts which will prevent the authority be limitless. Moreover, impartial judge mechanism of authority satisfies society’s security needs which are triggered by the self-preservation and self-loving characteristics of mankind. Laws are applied equally to all people and this provides tranquillity among the society.
To sum up, property is the core of the human nature and state’s prior duty is to secure the property of human according to Locke. Besides, life and liberties of mankind which are also topics of today’s agenda are taken into consideration seriously by Locke. With all these being taken into consideration, I suppose Locke’s ideal state is the one that provides more freedom than others’.
No comments:
Post a Comment