Hobbes, Machiavelli and Moral Relativism Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

Hobbes, Machiavelli and Moral Relativism - Essay ExampleThe piety that The Prince espouses has immortalized the famous nonion that the ends justify the means, that a ruler should not concern himself with abstract concepts of virtue and ethical motive in the effort to hold force-out. In this realist construct, since the ruler is power, the idea of sacrificing power in the interest of the virgin rule is not only an irrelevant idea, it becomes illogical. In this perspective, Machiavelli argues that the ruler must learn to be satisfactory not to be good and to use this and not use it as necessity dictates.1 prerequisite is the operative word in this idea, and emphasizes the real- creation morality of Machiavellis invention. The Prince must govern in the real world with men as they are, and not in some ideal world where men be encounter as they ought to.2 To Macchiavelli, actions bear an intrinsic virtue of their throw, regardless of whether those actions can be identified as evil. In other words, if the ruler, by his actions, is able to solidify his power and thus keep his rule secure from those who judge to supplant him, then he has, by definition, done good. Though Thomas Hobbes disagree with Macchiavelli concerning the role of the state, the two agreed on this 2 point In stressing the power of the sword and the inefficacy of mere words, Hobbes was following Macchiavelli.3 Both Hobbes and Macchiavelli concur in the policy-making virtue of fear and power, and that there should be no limitations place upon the rights of rulers.4 For both Hobbes and Machiavelli, metaphysics has no place in the real world of men, the world in which power is the only real currency. The effective ruler is never one who would consider virtue to be anything more than an abstraction, which can in no way aid him in wielding and maintaining power. Morality has a slightly diametric meaning for Hobbes, who proposes a natural condition of mankind, in which there is chaos, a conditio n devoid of political organization or power.5 In this natural state, Hobbes argues that there is no possibility of morality because there is nix to give it context and meaning. Hobbes counters that in a commonwealth, the organized political state in which all have a place, it is essential, and the individuals bounden duty, to obey those who hold power. Hobbes may have followed Machiavelli in the thorough beliefs concerning the primacy of power and authority over ideas and moral ethic, but he diverges from Machiavelli over the doctrine that morality is something that not only exists within the bounds of the political state, but is something that the individual must concede to the state for his own well-being and that of society. Hobbes was writing from firsthand knowledge about religious warfare, specifically, the horrific experiences of the English Civil War, the issuing of which had forced Hobbes to flee England to avoid Cromwells wrath over his proposition that obedience to unr estrained purple authority must be absolute. 3 Hobbes postulated a form of human equality for which Machiavelli does not allow. however Hobbes equality is not in the same vein as that of the ancient Greeks, or the great philosophers and writers of the Enlightenment. In Hobbes view, men should be seen to be equal politically because of a decisive point of equality both human being, even the strongest and smartest, is susceptible to being killed by others.