Plato and Aristotle’s concepts of virtue and justice as outlines in The Republic and Politics centered around who what individuals possesses the best qualities of leadership. These two men were primarily interested in the political nature of all citizens in addition to how morals and politics interacted with one another. Machiavelli and Hobbes do not entirely agree with these ideals and take a much more realistic view. Morals are something that have no place in government. Men are prone to pursue power and will do anything they can to get it. Leaders generally are not concerned with the welfare of the entire community, but how they can get what they want for themselves.
For Machiavelli the state exists for its rulers to pursue their own ends. This is accomplished through stabilization, preservation and expansion of the state. This process not only aids the rulers in achieving their aims, but benefits the ruled as well, because as the state increases in prestige, the spoils come back to the people enriching them as well. For Hobbes, the natural state of humanity is constant infighting and chaos. In order for a state to develop, the presence of social contract must come into play. Since naturally, humanity is base and corrupt this social contract between the rulers and ruled is the basis of the state. It ensures or at least places a foundation for a state that will not be as corrupt as the natural environment of men.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Modern Political Theory vs. Ancient Political Theory".
For both men politics is based upon power, how that power is attained and how it is wielded. The basis of their theories contributes to this view. It is a much more realistic approach than Plato and Aristotle. While the Greek philosophers realize man’s nature is not always golden, Hobbes and Machiavelli concentrate on the darker parts of humanity. Men do not seek to rule because of any sort of civic duty. It is based on power. The pitfalls of this approach are primarily that these viewpoints only focus on one aspect. There is more to the development of the state than just power hungry men seeking their own self-interest. While there is definitely merit and truth to this, there is also a sense of civic duty sprinkled in. How can anything always be all bad? It’s a rather negative approach. Realistic but does not include any other aspects which is simply not the entire picture of the state and what its purpose truly is.
