Machiavelli’s philosophy about the nature of man is that man as a whole is mostly bad and while retaining a few good qualities will lean towards his own self-interests when all things are equal; “that man has qualities that will bring him either praise or blame”. He also portrays men as selfish and fickle creatures as he writes, “..this is to be asserted in general of men, that they are ungrateful, fickle, false, cowardly, covetous..”. Hobbes on the other hand, views men in a “state of nature” as being completely self-centered and willing to do anything to get what they want; mankind lives in a dog-eat-dog world where everyone looks after only themselves and has no regard for others. Hobbes describes this self-centered way of life as being "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." He also shows men as incapable of conserving or prolonging their life without living under a ruling body, “augmentation of dominion over men being necessary to a man's conservation, it ought to be allowed him.” It is evident that both Machiavelli and Hobbes’ views of man greatly influence the way they think that man should be controlled.
John Adams and Jonathan Sewall In the article, “The Price of Patriotism: Jonathan Sewall and John Adams” there are two men who have many similarities but are polar opposites when it came to their overall view point. Both the men, Sewall and Adams, were lawyers and very successful in their line of work, until relations with Britain and the colonies started to change for the worse (Hollitz 51). Sewall and Adams consider themselves best friends (Hollitz 51), but when it came down to the power and control the English government had over the colonies they were their own enemies. John Adams and Jonathan Sewall had many similarities, both men graduated from Harvard with degrees in law, were teachers, were very successful in their jobs and held very prestigious titles, and both were extremely devout to their country (Hollitz 52-53). It just happens to be that Adams was on the side of the colonist and Sewall on the side of the mother country.
He lets us acknowledge that the only priorities of a prince are war, the foundations and the discipline. In his writings, he describes how it’s more important for a prince to be realistic than reasonable; he states, "in order to maintain the state he is often obliged to act against his promise, against charity, against humanity, and against religion" (Jacobus 231). The leader should be strong and feared to have more control over their people. This idea of fear God, my belief, is similarly to idea of fear the leader, as no one is to ever think to question God because he is feared. He understands that a leader should be greatly feared, but not hated nor loved.
I humbly bow to your attempt to challenge man to think beyond their own beliefs by simply questioning just what their beliefs are. You have revealed the concept that when man truly believes in something, he should undoubtedly be able to support his ideals. Your arrest though, proves my thesis that man is inherently evil especially when they arrest people for simply going against the majority. Should we just lie down and accept this relentless oppression? No, we should rally the minority and oppose those whom first opposed
The state is corrupt and corrupting. Bakunin believed ‘there is nothing more dangerous for a man’s morality than the habit of commanding’. The state is also destructive. It encourages individuals to fight on their behalf, at the expense of others. As Randolph Bourne put it, ‘war is the health of the state’.
Utilitarianism focuses on the belief that actions can be morally correct if the masses get more of the benefit than any one person. This differs from virtue theory greatly. While virtue theory looks at the history of one individual and those virtues effecting one individuals character, utilitarianism is a focus on the group. It is ones action that gives the group greater good, not an individual. Deontology is the theory that an individual does something because the individual believes it is the right thing to do.
Hobbes is well known author of “Leviathan”, and Locke is the author of “An Essay Concerning Human Understanding.” Both men address the characteristics of man, natural law, and the purpose and structure of government. These two theorists have very different opinions on the characteristics of man. Hobbes sees man as being evil, whereas Locke views man in a much more optimistic light. They both agree that all men are equal according to natural law, however their ideas on natural law differ greatly. Hobbes sees natural law as a state of war in which every man is an enemy to every man.
The unsighted acceptance of traditions and strict social conformity in The Chrysalids leads to the persecution and destruction of fellow human individuals. In John Wyndham's The Chrysalids, characters are willing to go to extremes in order to keep the old ways. According to old Jacob, they are afraid of having another "dose of Tribulation," (88). The blind acceptance of traditions leads to the destruction of the Waknuk society. In The Chrysalids, it can be seen that Joseph Strorm is very faithful to Waknuk's traditions, and there are many points that can prove it.
Hume concluded that the three points are inconsistent. If God is omnipotent, He is aware of existing evil and suffering, and knows how to put a stop to it. If God is omnibenevolent He will want to put a stop to it. If God is both of these attributes, then evil cannot exist. Since we know evil and suffering is a necessary bi-product of human life, we must acknowledge that evil does exist.
Thomas Hobbs’ philosophy was that the people were wicked and evil, so they needed to give all of their power to a ruler for the exchange of protection, this was know as the social contract. However, John Lock believed that people could learn for experience and improve themselves by making mistakes and learning from them. Lock also believed that all people are born free and equal and that people themselves should have the power to govern their own country. This philosophy quickly spread through out the colonies and created a dispute between the Britain monarchy and the American colonies because by its very own nature, republicanism was opposed to hierarchical and authoritarian institutions such as aristocracy and monarchy. In addition, what created a political dispute between America and Britain were the ideas of the ‘radical wigs’.