Analyzing Political Philosophies: Machiavelli, Hobbes, and Locke

This essay delves into the political philosophies of Niccolo Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes, and John Locke, examining their core ideas and contrasting perspectives. The essay begins by analyzing Machiavelli's pragmatic approach to governance, as outlined in "The Prince," exploring his advice to rulers and his justification for actions that prioritize the state's interests. It then examines Hobbes's social contract theory, as presented in "Leviathan," and his justification for obedience to the law, emphasizing the role of a sovereign power. Finally, the essay explores Locke's theory of property rights, as articulated in his "Second Treatise," and his concept of self-ownership and the acquisition of land. The essay also applies these philosophical concepts to hypothetical scenarios, such as a village under threat, a police strike, and a land dispute, demonstrating the practical implications of these theories. The student argues the application of these principles to make decisions and solve real-world problems.

Running head: Question and answer
Running head: Question and answer
Name of the student
Name of the university
Authors notes

Running head: Question and answer
Read Scenario 1. What advice would Machiavelli give to the Prince? How would he
justify it? Quote from Machiavelli in support of your argument.
Niccolo Machiavelli born in 1469 lived in the period of Renaissance, this period is
known as the age of exploration as this age was characterised rediscovery of art and
literature. Machiavelli wrote this book “The Prince”, when he was realised from the Second
Chancery of the Republican of Florence (Machiavelli 2008). His work has a paramount
potential because it is considered to be the of the first work of modern philosophy,
streamlined to political philosophy. This book encapsulates a practical guide for ruling not in
abstract terms but more of practical logic. In the first chapter, the author describes various
types of principalities and princes, and then he shows hoe different types of composite
personality can be maintained. One of the quality which is quintessential for a prince is to be
generous. Generous only in terms of resources that is not his, such as material that is brought
from war (Machiavelli 2008). Machiavelli also states that it is very important for prince to
maintain appearance according to the demand of the situation, for which he needs to grow
comprehension power. Therefore, prudence is an integral quality that needs to be inculcated
for gaining popularity within his subjects. In this way, Machiavelli, states the importance of
impression management, rather than what one think one oneself. In Chapter 18, he states, “a
prince… cannot observe all things which give men a reputation for virtue, because in order to
maintain his state he is often forced to act in defiance of good faith, of charity, of kindness, of
religion.” (Prince, Ch.18, p.101). Therefore it becomes evident Machiavelli, embarks his
journey to create a new morality that is remised on the naturalistic values, it is related to the
trait theory of leadership. In this piece of writing, Machiavelli, shows concerns about being
practical, devoid of any ethical consideration (Machiavelli 2008). As he states, “At this point
one may note that men must be either pampered or annihilated. They avenge light offenses:
they cannot avenge severe ones: hence, the harm one does to a man, a must be such as to

Running head: Question and answer
obviate any fear of revenge” (Machiavelli 2008). According to him, prince must realise that
he has two option; benevolence and destruction. It is very important for prince to choose his
option very wisely because it important to avoid resentment a d feeling of pity and
compassion are meaningless. Thus self-interest ad self-protection can be motivating factor of
pence, therefore the rice shall act wisely and practically.
How does Thomas Hobbes justify obedience to the law? Does he believe that we are
morally obliged to obey the law? Quote from Hobbes in support of your argument.
The seventeenth century was a time of great upheaval in England; it was the rise of
the newer bases of political author and government legitimacy, which will be premised, on
the rational thoughts. Society was progressing from faith-based society to reason based
society. Religion was one of the primary source that united the people of Europe; however, it
was also the main factor that caused tension in the mediaeval Europe. Thomas Hobbes was of
the opinion that human beings have determinist nature because he sees that every action if
calculated by estimating its possible cause and effect impact. Thus, human action is directed
to self-preservation and self-satisfaction, which is why he or she is not able to decide the
moral implication behind their own action. In the work of Leviathan (1651), Hobbes states
the social contract theory, where he describes the ideal way of political obligation. According
to him, every person has his or her own way to exercise freedom of expression, no amount to
governance can influence that, but except for law of nature (Hobbes 2006). However he also
states that being in the under nature of law one will also be in state of war for “Restless desire
for Power after Power”. Thus it is very important to submit oneself to the independent
sovereign body which will exercise power to make enforce and interpret laws. This form of
social contract is referred as “Sovereignty by institution” (Hobbes 2006). Therefore, when
they have consent they have the obligation to obey the sovereign. Hobbes aimed his

Running head: Question and answer
discussion of Social contract theory from a situation of having a complete moral autonomy to
situation of government and coerced obedience of the sovereign body.
Who would John Locke believe had rights of ownership to the land?
John Locke was one of the prominent English philosopher and physician, he is widely
known as the father of liberalism. Locke’s theory of property was discussed in the Second
Treatise, where he places both right to property as equal with right to health, liberty and life.
In the fifth chapter, he explains the concept of property, where he builds the concept of self-
ownership on the respective property. An individual who toils to create property has the right
to own them. According to him, right to private property can be very advantageous to the
population as a whole. He says, “Labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer,
no man but he can have a right to that is once joined to, al last where there is enough and as
good left in common for others” (Day, 1966). This implies that one can exercise full authority
over his land or property only when his exercise of property will not jeopardise anyone’s
ability to create equivalent kinds of property. He also believes that en has found the means to
overcome the inconvenience of the original economic organization. According to him, there
is no upper restriction of owning property because as long as a person owns property that do
not harm the other person, he can rightfully increase his private property.
Scenario 1: One day, as you back-pack around the world, you enter a small village and
notice that all 100 men in the village have been rounded up by the army. You approach the
officer in charge and ask why. He explains that one of the villagers (he knows which one)
wrote an anti-government slogan on a wall and the head of the government, known as the
Prince, has ordered all 100 men in the village to be killed. You protest at length and
eventually the officer offers you a choice. He will give you a handgun and point out the man
to you. If you execute the man, then the other 99 go free. If you do not, then his soldiers will
kill all 100. Would you kill the man? Why/why not?

Running head: Question and answer
Owing to the principles that were illustrated in the Prince, one should be very
practical and should think about matters that are objectively visible. If I am given the option
to kill the single person who defamed his ruler for which 100 of lives will be spared, I will
obviously go with that option. This is because my action is motivated by greatest good, even
though the means through which I will be attending that is a despicable choice but the
consequence it will bring is more desirable. Keeping aside the ethical dilemma that is it is a
heinous crime to take away one’s life, but if I have think about the consequences or the result
there are hundred lives who are being saved. Similar as it is stated in the Prince, Machiavelli
is concerned with applying morality in a self-consistent manner. Particularly in this situation,
I have a responsibility of 100 people in me therefore; I must act according to what is desired
by other and not by me. This is because the interest of the whole is prior to the self-interest,
therefore sacrificing the wrong doer and benefiting the mass is a new standard of morality,
where most of them are benefitting. In a way there is no singular way to serve the mass, there
is no singular governing technique, a person can do anything owing to what the situation
demands. Thus, I would the sacrifice the life on one for saving the 100 lives. In this way, I
will be able to increase the respect and honour in heart those people whom I am saving, and
there can be high chance, where I might get the offer to rule over them. Just because the
majority will back me, therefore if I am able to influence the people I might also uproot the
injustice from the root. Thus, I chose to sacrifice one life for 100 lives.
Scenario 2: The New Zealand police announce that they will go on strike for a week starting
at midnight today. No crimes committed in the next seven days will be investigated or
prosecuted. How will you prepare for the forthcoming week? How do you think your week
will differ from your usual week?
Even if the New Zealand police goes on strike, it is very important for everyone to
stick to his or her moral philosophy. The social institution of policing is very important

Running head: Question and answer
because it is keeps every activity supervised and thus people are always in check about their
activities. However, in the opinion of Hobbes, human beings are not able to have moral
constraints, this because they are influenced by the self-interests. Owing to this kind of
thought process, my survival with my family can be threatened as the police service has gone
for striking (Hobbes 2006). My feeling of insecurity is not alone in the midst of my
community, I am very sure that there are many people who are in the same boat as me, may
be in worse situation. Therefore, the only thing I can do to ensure safety of my household is
to form an association, where the interest of the community will be vested. This institution
will be a sovereign body where the interest of everybody will be represented. The institution
will not be guided with human egoism; however, this institution will aim to the betterment of
standard of living. In a state of unfettered freedom, there can rise the possibility of war, or
unrest. However, owing the situation of the present condition, people are not moved by the
self-interest, because people have developed the quality to cooperate (Hobbes 2006). Having
stated this, I still feel that there is a possible that might result in accidents or there might also
be people who needs helps. Thus, it is important to create an imitation whose aims is to
realise people who are in need of utter help. The only difference that can result is when there
will be emergence of situation that are unprecedented. However, creating a community is
always preferable because even when the situation alters, the community can function for
betterment of that particular area, for instance- raising the ecological issues, or celebrating the
success or many social event together.
Scenario 3: A settler arrives in what seems a place without human habitation. For six
months, he works daily to clear some land of bush and rocks and make it fit for sowing. He
uses the felled trees to build a house for his family. When his crops are in the ground, a
nomadic hunter-gatherer people return and explain that they live off this land for a month

Running head: Question and answer
every year and need the bush and trees as they were. The settler says that the cleared land is
now his by natural right. Do you agree with him? Why/why not?
The situation of the settler casts important understanding about the concept of private
property. The principles that were discussed under the Locke’s notion of private property,
expounds the view that anyone who toils to create anything has got the right to own it. In this
case the settler, work very hard and made the tough soil fertile for the sowing new crops. He
worked breaking bones for transforming the infertile land into a fertile one, this gives him the
license to make this his private property. As Lockes has stated, “... everyman has a property
in his own Person. This nobody has any right t but himself. The labour of his body, and the
work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state
that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joyed to it
something that is his own, and thereby make it his property. It being by him removed from
the common state nature placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it, that
excludes the common right of other men.” (Day, 1966) Therefore, when the settles has
modified the land gave his labour to it, he gets his right over the land because, the vagabonds
who left the place cannot claim it back because, they did not out any of theory labour to settle
the situation. The innate nature of the vagabonds is to shift their place, therefore they do not
have any particular place where they can claim their ownership. This is because they
constitutes themselves by possession of something but not ownership of that particularly.
Moreover, the vagabonds were not present while he has working on it, therefore it is the right
of the settler to have the land. Furthermore, to ease out the situation, the settler can rent the
land to the vagabond, where they can stay and again recommence their journey.

Running head: Question and answer
References
Machiavelli, N. (2008). The prince. Hackett Publishing.
Hobbes, T. (2006). Leviathan. A&C Black.
Day, J. P. (1966). Locke on property. The Philosophical Quarterly (1950-), 16(64), 207-220.