Machiavelli, Hobbes, and Locke... essay alert!

Machiavelli (1467-1527) - The Prince, Discourses

Machiavelli is considered to be the most renowned political philosopher within the Renaissance period. He was a Florentine and held a minor government post until the restoration of the Medici in 1512. As he had always opposed the Medici family he was arrested, but then acquitted.

The most famous text by Machiavelli is ‘The Prince’, published in 1513, and was an attempt to win the favour of the Medici. It has since been viewed as a ‘how-to guide’ for rulers. ‘The Prince’ is the main focus in the chapter on Machiavelli, however Russell also mentions the publication ‘Discourses’, which was also written in 1513 but provides a more republican and liberal view. This is worth mentioning as it provides a more in depth insight into Machiavelli’s doctrines, whereas ‘The Prince’ was limited to please the Medici.

In ‘The Prince’ Machiavelli states that the prince is defended by ancient religious customs which protects them no matter how they behave, and they are upheld by a higher power (God). However this seems to act more as a justification for the Pope, rather than stating an attribute of the prince. In ‘Discourses’ Machiavelli states that religion is not a source of truth, but it acts as a ‘social cement’, however he also holds the Church as the reason for the divide in Italy. Machiavelli argues that politics and ethics are entirely separate, this means you can admire an enemies’ skill whilst still disapproving of their political aims. Morality appears to be a bit of a grey area when it comes to the ruler, stating that ‘the ruler will perish if he is always good; he must be as cunning as a fox and as fierce as a lion’. Essentially Machiavelli is arguing that the ruler need not be virtuous, but he must seem to be virtuous, and above all the ruler must seem to be religious.  Russell gives the example of Alexander VI who did nothing but deceive men, but he always succeeded in his deceptions.

In ‘Discourses’ Machiavelli sets forth the doctrine that princes, nobles and people should all have a part in the Constitution and would keep one another in check. The constitution in Sparta was the best example of this. Russell notes this to be an important doctrine, parallel in importance to those put forward in ‘The Prince’, so it seems only fair to make note of it. In ‘the Prince’ Machiavelli goes against the concept of the ‘Divine Right of Kings’, and instead proposes that power is a free competition, and is something one can gain if they have the skills to act in a certain way. A good politician is somebody who can maintain power, keeping government and the population content. To achieve any political end one must have power, and this power is often dependent upon public opinion, which can be controlled by propaganda. Those who have power can control propaganda to make themselves appear virtuous before the ‘ignorant public’. Logically it then follows that politicians will be more virtuous if they depend upon a virtuous population, and are part of a community where their crimes and misbehaviour can be made publicly known. Machiavelli is a political realist, and holds an unsentimental view of human nature, suggesting that politics is simply a personal strive for power.

Hobbes (1588-1679) -Leviathan

Hobbes was an empiricist (believed that knowledge is derived from experience) and was a great admirer of the mathematical method. At university he was taught Aristotelian philosophy which he did not seem to appreciate, he was instead greatly influenced by the work of Galileo and Kepler.

  In 1628 Hobbes published a translation of ‘Thucydides’ with the intention of showing the evils of democracy. However when the Long Parliament met in 1640, Laud and Strafford were sent to the Tower of London accused of treason; fearing his own incarceration Hobbes fled to France. The English Civil War (1641-1651) in itself was not the cause of his opinions on democracy; it was instead the prospect of any civil war. First hand observation simply re-enforced those ideas.

One of his most renowned publications is the ‘Leviathan’, which he published in 1651. This however, was not well received; his rationalism and attacks on the Catholic Church offended many, including the French Government. Hobbes was forced to once again flee the country he was in, this time however he returned to London; England, where he made submission to Cromwell. He abstained from all political activity and was banned from printing any material that might have been deemed controversial in England.

So what were the doctrines put forward in the ‘Leviathan’ which offended so many?

The first part of the ‘Leviathan’ focuses on man as an individual and this is where Hobbes manages to offend the Catholic Church.  He argues that ‘imagination when asleep is dreaming’, nothing too controversial there, I think that’s a point we can all agree on. However he then extends this to say that the religions of the gentiles, (non-Jewish people), came from not distinguishing dreams from waking life, and belief that those dreams are prophetic (from God), is mere delusion. He compares belief in the Catholic Church to belief in witches and ghosts. Hobbes is a nominalist and notes the importance of language, stating that it is the only universal, and without language there would be no truth or falsehood.  He argues that what is religion and what is just superstition should be decided by the legislator, and that there should be only one religion within a state.

So who is the legislator?

Hobbes focuses the foundation of his argument on ‘the state of nature’ where all men are naturally equal, and they all wish to preserve their own liberty, whilst dominating over others. Their actions and desires are dictated by the impulse to self-preservation. In this state of nature there is only war, a war of all against all, making life ‘nasty, brutish, and short’. He argues that the only way to escape these evils is to appoint a sovereign. Hobbes believed that power should not be divided, but instead should be in the hands of one supreme authority, and this where he develops the concept of a ‘social contract’. This is a covenant made by the citizens with each other to obey the sovereign, which is chosen by the majority. The subjects may only choose the first sovereign,  from then on the successor is to be chosen by the sovereign. Once the first sovereign has been chosen the subjects lose all of their rights. The sovereign in Hobbes’ theory is the ‘Leviathan’, which is a mortal God. The ‘Leviathan’s’ power is limitless, they would control the laws on property, and resistance against them is condemned. However Hobbes limits the sovereign by giving the citizen the right to self-preservation. This means they have the right to self-defence even against the sovereign, including the right to refuse to fight when called upon by the government. Also if at any point the sovereign fails to protect you, then you have no duty to them and can effectively get rid of them.

Hobbes preferred the system of monarchy but his theory can be applied to all forms of government, provided there is one supreme authority. His reason for preferring the monarchy was that they would have fewer favourites than a government where there are more members, and a monarch can seek advice privately from anyone whereas a government can only seek advice from its own members. There is also the possibility of disagreement in a government assembly, which can result in a civil war.

The theories in the ‘Leviathan’ fail to account for class differences, as Hobbes only considers national interest as a whole, assuming that all the major interests of all the citizens are the same. He also fails to provide a remedy for the relationships between the different states, meaning that their relationship is still in the state of nature, making it a war of all states against all states. There is no account for the need of an international government.

Locke (1632—1704) – Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Treaties on Government

Russell provides us with two main chapters to focus upon regarding Locke. The first is ‘Locke’s Theory of Knowledge’, and the second is ‘Locke’s Political Philosophy’.

In the chapter on Locke’s theory of knowledge the main doctrine to remember is that he argued all of our knowledge is derived from experience (empiricism). Locke argued that our ideas come from two sources: sensation, and internal sense perception. He defines perception as the ‘first step and degree towards knowledge’. Locke argues that these sensations have external causes and share the attributes of their cause.  On ethics Locke claimed that people are moved to act by an attraction to pleasure and repulsion from pain (an idea made famous by philosopher Bentham, and his Hedonic Calculus). However people are not always drawn to act in a way which results in maximum pleasure, as people are more attracted to the immediate pleasures, rather than those which must be achieved over a length of time. Locke develops this argument and states what is in the public interest, and one’s own private interests are often the same thing, so people will act to promote the general ‘good’.

On Locke’s Political Philosophy, between 1689 and 1690 Locke wrote his two ‘Treaties on Government’.  The first acts as a criticism of Filmer’s ‘The Natural Power of Kings’, which lays out the theory of the divine right of kings. This theory argues that God chose Adam as the first King, and the various monarchs are the heirs of Adam. I don’t think anyone can deny how ludicrous this seems, this theory puts political power in the hands of people based upon heredity.  Locke wholeheartedly rejected this theory.

Locke’s second of the treaties on government states that the origin for the need of government comes from the ‘state of nature’. However unlike Hobbes, Locke has a more positive view of this state of nature arguing that all men have natural freedom and equality, but must follow natural laws, which have divine origin (e.g. though shalt not kill). However within the state of nature every man has the right to defend himself and his property, which means someone could kill another person for petty theft. Preservation of property was the main reason Locke saw for the creation of government.

Civil Government is the result of a social contract, and they are permitted to create laws and the coinciding penalties, preserve property, and protect the Commonwealth, all for the public good (a very important point). Locke argued that government power should be restricted, and it cannot be a monarchy as there would be no neutral party to solve disputes between the monarch and a citizen.  There is also religious freedom, as religion and politics are kept entirely separate. This type of government would have rule of the majority, however it is not quite democracy as it does not count women, or those who cannot afford property, as citizens. The creation of this type of society is dependent upon the consent of the population, and also taxation cannot be altered without the populations consent. This concept of a social contract was a great influence to the American Constitution. Similarly to Hobbes, until the installation of an international government, individual state relations are still in the state of nature.