John Locke Versus Niccolo Machiavelli

2842 Words12 Pages
John Locke versus Niccolo Machiavelli Despite their contradictions on “sovereignty”, John Locke and Niccolo Machiavelli (two philosophers of the Renaissance era) shared one conspicuous concern, and that is their concern for the betterment of society. It is plain to see that both philosophers did have common ways of thinking regarding what a ruler should and should not do. It is ‘how’ a ruler should behave in order to win sovereignty of his state that led to a divergence in their opinions. I certainly am inspired with the Lockean way of thinking, but I am not sure how realistic such a way of thinking is when applied to our modern times. The ‘Lockean Liberalism’ is a paradox only in theory. I view Machiavelli as a true philosopher whose wisdom and wit won influence all over the world. I know this may seem like an irrational opinion given his portrayal as a cynical and ruthless person, but throughout this essay I will try to prove that Machiavelli’s realism and honesty regarding human nature, and his impudent philosophy regarding a ruler and his subjects, can be clearly experienced in the reality of our present society. John Locke, an English philosopher, was born in the sixteenth century. He is renowned for his inspirational work and remarkable philosophy on ‘Freedom’ and ‘The Preservation of One’s Property’. Through his treatise, “Of Civil Government” Locke’s ideologies have transcended our modern attitudes and beliefs about governments and how they are held today. His philosophical thoughts have come to be viewed as his greatest contribution to the realm of political theory. Niccolo Machiavelli, a famous Italian writer born in the fourteenth century, is another phenomenal philosopher whose distinct character and bold voice echo to this very day. One of Machiavelli’s extraordinary works was his book ‘The Prince’, in which he candidly
Open Document