Unit 2 Reflection

Argumentative/Persuasive Essay on Hobbes, Machiavelli, Locke, or Rousseau- Reading Hobbes, Machiavelli, Locke, or Rousseau, one gets a similar view of mankind but with different suggestions for its management.Using your own critical understanding of contemporary society as evidence, write a carefully argued essay that explains your support of either Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke or Rousseau.

If political views were placed on a spectrum, Machiavelli and Rousseau would be on opposite ends. Hobbes and Locke would be the lesser extremes. Machiavelli and Hobbes have the more “real” perception of people. They believe them to be naturally bad, whereas Locke and Rousseau think the opposite. Rather than fret with how people would have naturally been before they became a society, we should view how people are in the present. Rousseau believes that by creating a strong central government inhibits the personal rights of citizens, and their naturally good ways are strangled. Although, we shouldn’t dabble in what people might have been if they never joined into any sort of social contract. After observing the way the world of humans has changed and evolved marked by bloody wars and conflicts, it would be difficult not to admit that human nature is not as good as Locke and Rousseau seem to think. So if we establish that humans are inherently bad, a form of government and its management should be formed that counteracts that agreed upon fact.

            Machiavelli is spot on with his opinions on how a ruler should rule. He speaks of how a ruler cannot always act “good” if he is going to keep order in a society of people who are not naturally good anyway. Men are simply selfish, so if a social contract is not enforced newfound individualism would breed chaos and anarchy. People need to be conformed under one goal and under the order of a single powerful government if they will be shaped into the most that they can be.

            As put earlier, men are bad and selfish. A ruler has to resort to harsh methods at times to keep people in order. For without harsh consequences, which create fear, men will have no reason to invest themselves in any sort of social contract to better the community. What needs to be called to mind is reality. People will not just help their neighbors out of the goodness of their hearts; they need to have a hand held over them to lead them in certain directions. It is almost like a game. Governments have to predict the motives of both their enemies and their own people. Order can easily crumble if someone is bribed enough to take out the keystone, and without any sort of consequence the bribe price will not be so high. Rousseau and locke seem to float in their ideas for a dream world, whereas Machiavelli just states how it is, and what needs to be done to manage it.