Previous milestones 1 and 2 are attached as well as the rubric.
Same sources would be nice as previously used if you could!
Submit an outline of your final project paper, indicating how you will contrast the two theorists’ views on the nature of mankind, capitalism, justice, liberty, revolution, and the relationship between citizen and the state.
Hobbes and Machiavellian Theory
Melissa Yaver
POL-313
20 March 2022
Hobbes and Machiavellian Theories
Engberg-Pedersen, Anders. “Is Society at War? Le Colonel Foucault.” Partial Answers: Journal of Literature and the History of Ideas 20, no. 1 (2022): 83-104.
Thomas Hobbes and his fellow political theorist Niccolo Machiavellian can be counted among the famous politicians and philosophy experts. The two created theories remain applicable to the modern political arena where tough ends are met since they provide relevant solutions. The term theory defines existing thoughts to explain how they came to be. The theory’s applicability depends typically on how informed the theorist is on the specific field they attempt to explain. Thomas is famous because of the “social construct theory” he created. His theory generally elaborates why humans behave the way they do, and it answers the reason behind categorizing people based on the social background they belong to. Machiavellian is prominent for his theory “the end justifies the means.” The theory explains how every outcome is met, and there are always relevant methodologies adopted from the beginning. The two theories usually come in handy whenever political issues are raised.
Kelly, Paul. “Conflict, War and Revolution: The problem of politics in international political thought.” (2022): 472.
Concerning the theorist’s backgrounds, Hobbes identifies as a scholar, and he was dedicated to seeing politics being analyzed and positioned scientifically. His approach towards his theory was specific and reasonable in all aspects. Hobbes believed that creating a scientific relation to politics would come in handy when decisions amounting to peace were required to be drawn. He thought political analysis should be made independently and not with societal evaluation. In the case of Machiavellian, he was driven by his actions. He came up with solutions after observing human behavior in society. He did not believe some rules required to be followed by people in the real world. He states that outcomes reflect individual choices taken and followed with anticipation of those results. The two approaches adopted by Hobbes and Machiavellian are evidence of their difference. One applied logic while the other believed in a structured political approach in making political clarifications.
Regent, Nikola. “Quentin Skinner, contextual method and Machiavelli’s understanding of liberty.” History of the Human Sciences (2022): 09526951211049930.
According to the theorist’s philosophies, Hobbes believed that people act according to the terms set and put in place in a particular community to govern their actions. He alleged that most politicians are aware of these standards in the communities. It explains how they come up with manifestos that highly resonate with societal needs. The manifestos are used to sway people into believing the politician has their best interests at heart, making society approve of the political aspirant to be their leader. The idea makes Hobbes’s theory applicable in the modern-day political field when vying for political seats. The theory is best seen when the campaign period commences, and suddenly the long-lost politicians start to resurface in their respective communities. The aim is to discover what people expect from their leaders and later use the information as bait for their votes. Society can make better choices when electing leaders with this knowledge in mind.
Yaman, Fuat. “Applying Machiavellian Discourses to Russian Hybrid Warfare.” Master’s thesis, Middle East Technical University, 2022.
From Machiavellian’s point of view, he analyzes how ethical leaders are regarding administration. He believes that the moral route taken by the politicians will directly reflect the outcome of their leadership. Machiavellians acknowledge that Christian principles cannot govern politics since politics sometimes involve false promises, biased agendas, and political assassinations to get or maintain leadership positions. He argues that outcomes are supposed to be created by following the use of the most human choices as per the community expectations. Therefore, Hobbes’s views compared to Machiavellian’s indicate that they aimed to show how politicians achieve their positions following legitimate and illegitimate tactics. According to Machiavellian theory, politicians will do whatever it takes to gain power, including disseminating lies, using propaganda, and eliminating those who appear to be threats. It can be established that the theoretical approaches can aid in the analysis of social solutions to the problems that societies face when appointing rulers.
Based on the analysis of the two theories, one can conclude that Hobbes’s and Machiavellian’s approaches to politics remain viable today. Hobbes believes that people from a particular community adhere to specific set rules. The social constructs make them vulnerable to politicians who act as if they resonate with them to gain their approval. Machiavellian believes that politicians will do what they need to do to attain power, even spreading lies or eliminating those that appear as threats to them. It can be concluded that indeed the two theories can help in drawing political solutions to the challenges that the society meets when electing their administrators.
Bibliography
Engberg-Pedersen, Anders. “Is Society at War? Le Colonel Foucault.” Partial Answers: Journal of Literature and the History of Ideas 20, no. 1 (2022): 83-104.
Kelly, Paul. “Conflict, War and Revolution: The problem of politics in international political thought.” (2022): 472.
Regent, Nikola. “Quentin Skinner, contextual method and Machiavelli’s understanding of liberty.” History of the Human Sciences (2022): 09526951211049930.
Yaman, Fuat. “Applying Machiavellian Discourses to Russian Hybrid Warfare.” Master’s thesis, Middle East Technical University, 2022.
Hobbes and Machiavellian
Melissa Yaver
POL 313
13 March 2022
Thomas Hobbes and Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli are among the renowned political philosophers whose theories are still applicable in solving and explaining various dilemmas in the modern days. A theory, by definition, is said to be an idea that aims to explain a trend, system, or occurrence. However, the relevancy may depend on the scope of the theorists. As for Thomas Hobbes, he is well renowned for the social construct theory. As for Machiavelli, he is well known for his theories summarized by the phrase, the end justifies the means.
The social construct theory explains people’s behaviors and why people are classified as societies or communities. According to Hobbes, human behavior is greatly influenced by the construct or agreement among them in all aspects[ Loewe, Markus, Tina Zintl, and Annabelle Houdret. “The social contract as a tool of analysis: Introduction to the special issue on Framing the evolution of new social contracts in Middle Eastern and North African countries.” World Development 145 (2021): 104982.]. This may explain why most of the political aspirants tend to disseminate manifestos and proposals of how they will help solve some social issues that are particular to society. By the is actions, the politicians tend to assume that they are part of the society, thus influencing the members’ choice and inclination as far as the choice of leadership is concerned. The social construct theory is still relevant and applicable in the contemporary philosophy regarding political authority legitimization[ Ibid]. On the other hand, Machiavelli contends about the ethicality and morality of various political approaches to administrate people. While some of the mas may be controversial, Machiavelli argues that the acquired results will validate the means applied. The contention of Machiavelli is defined to have a counter-position against Christian values. Because in some instances, politicians may use lies, propaganda, murdering among other vices, to attain their political career. However, from the philosophy of Machiavelli, it can be argued that the results used to determine the justification of the means should be judged as per the criteria of humanism and the society being governed by such leaders[ Lamus, Felipe. “Machiavelli’s Moral Theory: Moral Christianity versus Civic Virtue.” (2017).]. Thus, both Hobbes and Machiavellian aimed to explain why people may be cornered to follow a particular order and why some tactics to corner the followers may be termed as justice or injustice to some extent.
Bibliography
Lamus, Felipe. “Machiavelli’s Moral Theory: Moral Christianity versus Civic Virtue.” (2017). https://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/10161/13473/Lamus%20-%20Machiavelli’s%20Morals.pdf?sequence=1
Loewe, Markus, Tina Zintl, and Annabelle Houdret. “The social contract as a tool of analysis: Introduction to the special issue on Framing the evolution of new social contracts in Middle Eastern and North African countries.” World Development 145 (2021): 104982.
