It began when Napoleon’s reign started to end and the Congress of Vienna in 1815, and ended with the Franco-Prussian War in 1870-1871 (2). After the collapse of the revolutions of 1848 lead by Mazzini, most of the Italian leaders favored a unified nation (3). Unification movements in Italy shifted to Sardinia-Piedmont under King Victor Emmanuel the second and his prime minister: Count Camillo di Cavour. Cavour contributed heavily in the Italian unification. He built Sardinia into a liberal and economical sound state.
He opened their eyes to the ideals of democracy and the free world. He exhibited unbridled power and found that he too, like many before him, wanted to rule the world. B. Summary of Evidence • He was responsible for the spreading of the liberalizing ideas of the French Revolution throughout Europe, which help to bring an end to the remnants of feudal systems still existing in parts of Central and Eastern Europe. • Even though he was an Emperor, he actually started the demise of kingdoms and royalty.
However Italians such as Garibaldi, Cavour, Victor Emanuel and Mazzini sought to unify the area and create one nation. Separatism was an important factor in Italian Unification; however to first understand separatism it must be defined in the context of Italian Unification. Separatism in Italy at the time was the divided nature of the “geographical area known as Italy”, with its different states, rules and languages. The splitting up of Italy into these sets of smaller Pre-Napoleonic states at the Congress of Vienna was the main reason behind the increased feeling of separatism felt at the time in Italy. Separatism contributed positively to Italian unification in some ways, for instance it led to a sense of pride in certain states which led to an increased feeling of resentment towards foreign powers that were occupying, or held power over some states in Italy at the time.
He even quoted ‘we were prepared for anything, except a liberal Pope. The Risorgimento movement believed they could trust on the Pope’s support as they thought he wanted a unified Italy. However, in his speech on 29th April 1848 he stated that
57). If leaders of government imposed regulations on the people, he believed this would hamper society’s growth and the people would not maintain the highest level of happiness. This demonstrates a good leader should empower the people to become more independent and to instill trust in the people to make the right choice. Machiavelli, a totalitarian thinker, believed that a leader should maintain a dictatorship rule with complete power by any means necessary without regard to the people’s expectations. He states, “Hence it is necessary for a prince who wishes to maintain his position to learn how not to be good, and to use this knowledge or not to use it according to necessity” (38, ver.
This is seen as Lau-Tzu describes weapons by stating that they are “… the tools of violence; all decent men detest them,” (Tao 31) while Machiavelli believes, “A prince, therefore, must not have any other obect nor any other thought, nor must he take anything as his profession but war, its institutions, and its discipline” (Prince 1). The tendency to push the extremes for the good of the people and the leader is the one main thing Machiavelli and Lao-Tzu have in common. Although Lao-Tzu does provide the reader with many new ways to deal with situations, it does not give any form of structure when used as a governing method. In the Tao-te Ching, Lao-Tzu writes about the way “The Master” is to get things achieved.
The Unjust of Just law Ethics 110 22 Jun 2010 In a democratic state it is in never within our rights to break the law. Breaking the law leads to lawlessness and disobedience from the democracy that we have worked, or have been born into. If the law is unjust, then it might be fair to break that law as long as you are willing to suffer the consequences of punishment set aside for that particular unjust law. Failure to adhere to the punishment is unjust as well, for failure to adhere to the punishment of the law is a statement that you do not respect the laws of your society. Martin Luther King Jr. states “Oppressed People cannot remain oppressed forever.” (Cahn, 2009 p. 387) As we have seen throughout history, this is a true statement.
Before 1815, Italy was ruled over by Napoleon and the country had a hugely influenced by France and it’s regimes. Many historians argue that the period of Napoleonic reign was the closest Italy came to recognizing itself as a country, with a nationalist spirit slowly developing. However, this spirit was crushed by Metternich at the Vienna Settlement. His desire was to restore the old pre-1976 order, imposing a Conservative settlement and therefore crushing any hopes of liberal or nationalist reforms across Europe. Some of the key aims of the Vienna Settlement were to restore the ‘legitimate rulers’, to maintain the ‘balance of power’ in Europe and indeed to place Austria in a position of control over Italy.
Locke stated that people were naturally good but Thomas Hobbes had a negative view towards human nature. Hobbes sees man as being evil. In his principal work, ‘Leviathan’ Hobbes believes that, “people are innately selfish and grasping.” Hobbes believes that ethical concepts such as good or bad or ideas of good or evil doesn’t exist in the state of nature. He thinks that mankind can use any power essential to protect him and his surrounding for good. Hobbes named this condition as ‘war’ which also meant that every man is enemy to every man.
Locke stands firm in the belief that people can incite a revolution against their government when it begins to work against what is in the best interest of the populace (Locke, p. 112). He places limits on these actions - such as what a conqueror is entitled to and what would justify as tyrannical behavior - but still justifies the right to instigate a shift political power. On the other hand, Hobbes finds private discourse against one’s sovereign to a disease (p. 197). He finds contempt in the populace under the sovereign, noting that most of were incapable of understanding the inner mechanisms powering the sovereign (p. 207). By deeming the collective population incompetent and likening their anti-governmental chatter to a plague, it is not a reach to assume Hobbes would not prescribe a right to revolution.