SEMINAR PAPER: The classical and early modern theory of the state: Machiavelli. Hobbes. Locke.

"It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both", arguably sums up Machiavelli's political ideology. Through his The Prince; perhaps one of the most influential piece of modern philosophies,  Machiavelli out-rightly and somewhat cynically (as pointed out by Russell), justifies immorality when it is used as a means to an end, in this case, a Prince's pursuit for eminence, "for a man who strives after goodness in all his acts is sure to come to ruin." Therefore, an ideal and successful Prince must seem to be religious. So essentially, he must convince his subjects, that through his faith in God he has aquired a strong moral and virtuous core. Machiavell argued that a Prince must in fact use religion and God to exact power, but himself "on occassion be faithless." It should not however be forgotten that Machiavelli did indeed write The Prince to appeal to the new Florentine Prince; Lorenzo de Medici in an attempt to be "unexiled" and return to Italy, and considering the juxtaposition of the notions presented in his previous work, Discourses to that presented in The Prince- especially with regards to the ideal form of a state (a republic and not a principality), Machiavelli can indeed be perceived to be both insincere and hypocritical. Interestingly though, this reflects  and puts into practice his idea that "those who deceive will always allow themselves to be deceived." Unfortunately, his plans of sycophancy failed as Lorenzo de Medici was not at all partial to the book.The Medicis were overthrown by Charles V, and after Florence was returned to its previous republic state, Machiavelli continued to spend the last of his years in exile due to the anti-republican nature of The Prince; a text originally designed to get him back into his Country. Ironic.


Inspired by the works of Galileo,  and an endorser of mathematical theory, Hobbes(1588-1679) was an empiricist whose political texts are often described more modern that that even of Machiavelli. His Leviathan, the name of which is derived from the biblical creature with unmatched power and stands as a metaphor for the commonwealth; giagantic in proportion and all powerful, focuses on the importance of a single political leader to avoid civil war and unrest between the masses. In the beginning of Leviathan, Hobbes speculates that a lifestyle without a stable government  combined with his notion that "all men are born equal", would lead to a "war of all against all",  and in short,"continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man; solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." To free himself of this disorder, man must make and abide by a social contract and appoint a "sovereign" or as he puts it, a leviathan who would provide a political, metaphorical umbrella. Somewhat mirroring the theme of The Prince, Hobbes justifies any abuse inflicted by this sovereign power as a result, must be accepted as it is better to be politically safe than at a threat of war. Hobbes also stated that the very Church itself must be subject to this state. This was no doubt, extremely controversial. However, not nearly as extreme as Machiavelli (whose theories would justify Hitler's actions),  due to the nature of the social contract, Hobbes states that all subjects have a right to life, and therefore are able to defend themselves, even from the sovereign, and have no duty of allegiance to a sovereign who can not protect them.

An empiricist like Hobbes, Locke is regarded as "an apostle of the revolution of 1688" by Russell, and was hugely influenced by Descartes. Russell's fondness of Locke is made painstakingly obvious as he considers even his errors useful in practice. The prime example of which is the notion of primary and secondary qualities (in which Locke argues that primary qualities are unseperate from the body, whereas secondary qualities lies with the percipient), Berkley did however refute this, and said primary qualities too were dependent on the perceiver and therefore didn't exist at all). Still, Locke “initiated” the idea, and was essentially the founder of philosophical liberalism, and therefore unsurprisingly shaped the British government until roughly 50 years ago. However, even Russell recognises that the appreciation and application of Locke's theories was hugely aided by the existence of a government ruled by those with similar opinions.

Filmer’s work was  widely refuted by Locke. Filmer claimed that the King alone must make laws, free from any duty to his subjects, as he was descended directly from Adam, whom God blessed with Kingly power. In this sense, Adam as a father, passed down this authority along to his children, thus down through the generations. This ideology of course has nothing to do with the fact that Filmer was writing under the name of "Charles 1" himself (!) Locke posed serious opposition to this "theory", and claimed that it was an absurd notion as God granted Adam "Kingly power" over the plants and animals; not human life. (Although, I suppose you could claim that all humans are animals, blahblahblah) He also states that it would be impossible to discover Adam's "true heir", and states that parental power is equal between the sexes. He concludes with the idea that doctrine of the divine rights of the king will in fact be the downfall of all governments.

Unlike Machiavelli, Locke claims that the state of nature is in fact "a state of peace, goodwill, mutual assistance, and preservation", and that men "live together according to reason with a common superior on earth, with an authority to judge between them". However, he also (rather contradictorily) argues that man is free to punish attacks on himself and his property, and can judge the severity of his actions himself. For example, by Locke's notions, you can go as far as to kill a man who happens to steal a slice of bread from you, and this is completely justifies under the law of nature. He also (rather controversially) argues that captives in a just law should be condemned to slavery.