Modern Political Theoryfirst Writing Assignmentdue Via Turnitincom On ✓ Solved

MODERN POLITICAL THEORY FIRST WRITING ASSIGNMENT Due via turnitin.com on Monday, March 8 by 11:00 AM Write a 1,500-1,900-word double-spaced paper on one of the following options : 1) It is often said that one of the things that distinguishes modern political thought from earlier political thought is a deliberate and significant lowering of the aims of politics. No longer do political theorists seek to discover the “greatest good,†pursue the “best regime,†or identify ways for citizens to achieve excellence or virtue. Instead, scholars contend, they aim for more achievable, down-to-earth goals. How do Machiavelli and Hobbes lower the aim of politics? In your response, address the following questions: What aim or aims do they establish for politics?

How do these aims impact the obligations and responsibilities of ordinary subjects or citizens? How do these aims affect the obligations and responsibilities of those in positions of political authority? 2) One of the defining features of modern political thought is the tendency to validate and appeal to self-interest. Instead of asking readers to rise above their narrow self-interest(s) and do things for altruistic, communal, or other-directed reasons, modern political thinkers such as Machiavelli and Hobbes make arguments that build overtly on the self-interest of their readers. Discuss the role of self-interest in Machiavelli’s Prince and Hobbes’s Leviathan by addressing the following questions: How do these two thinkers define the self-interest of their intended audience and what role does self-interest play in their overall arguments?

To whose interests do Machiavelli and Hobbes appeal (i.e., who is their intended audience?)? How does each thinker define self-interest? Does each thinker simply take self-interest as a given, or does he seek to transform the way his readers understand their own self-interest? What is the significance of self-interest in the larger argument of each thinker? 3) Modern political thought is marked by a number of “breaks†with the past.

Perhaps the most significant is its break with the religious and theological mindset of medieval Christianity. Specifically, it is often said that modern political thinkers are pre-occupied with “this-worldly†matters to the exclusion of “other-worldly†concerns. How do Machiavelli and Hobbes contribute to this shift toward secularism in political thought? In your response, explain 1) how Machiavelli and Hobbes make “this-worldly†concerns the primary focus of politics (i.e., what do they suggest should concern their readers), and 2) why they establish this shift (i.e., explain the significance of this shift). 4) In recent years, many political systems around the world have shifted toward more authoritarian forms of rule centered around powerful executives who tend to spurn conventional or established political and moral norms and seek ways to avoid accountability to legislatures, courts, and ordinary citizens.

Critics of these authoritarian leaders sometimes refer to them as “Machiavellian†or “Hobbesian†in their approaches to ruling. Do you agree with the characterization of authoritarian leaders such as Viktor Orbà n in Hungary, Vladimir Putin in Russia, Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, and others throughout the world as Machiavellian or Hobbesian in the way they have governed? Your response to this question may cite specific examples from recent politics, but it should focus on what Machiavelli and Hobbes have to say about the concentration of power and avoidance of accountability (or checks) on executives. Make sure to identify and explain any areas of disagreement between Machiavelli and Hobbes on these points.

5) Develop a paper topic of your own that discusses themes or problems addressed by both Machiavelli and Hobbes. If you decide to pursue this option, you should discuss your proposal with Professor Fatovic in advance and submit a brief (-word) description via e-mail no later than Monday, March 1. Whichever topic you choose, your papers should reflect what you have learned from lectures and assigned readings. Before submitting a hard copy of your paper, you must submit your paper to . Follow the instructions for students.

To use this website you will need to enter the correct class ID ( ) and enrollment password ( modernity ) for this course. Helpful hints and reminders : Make sure you address the assigned topic directly and thoroughly. Avoid digressions and tangential discussions that do not relate to the topic and focus on building a persuasive argument. You should use properly cited evidence from the texts to support your argument. Whether you are using direct quotations or simply paraphrasing, you should always indicate page numbers, either in parentheses or in footnotes.

Avoid using quotes that have no obvious connection to the topic under discussion. Make sure the meaning or significance of a quote is apparent. Your papers should reflect independent thought, not a recitation of irrelevant facts or other extraneous information. Feel free to draw upon material covered in lectures and discussions—as long as such material helps you make relevant points that advance the discussion. You are cautioned against using internet sources, which are sometimes highly unreliable.

You do not need to do any outside research for this paper, but if you do decide to use outside sources, including internet sources, you must provide full bibliographic information. Any quotes you use must be placed in quotation marks to indicate that you are using someone else’s words. Failure to do so will result in a failing grade for the course and additional disciplinary action. Late papers will not be accepted. It is your responsibility to make sure you submit this assignment on time and in the proper format. For additional advice on writing your paper, refer to the writing tips provided on page 3 of the syllabus.

Paper for above instructions

Modern political thought distinguishes itself from its classical and medieval predecessors through a notable lowering of political ambitions. The ethical imperatives to seek the “greatest good” or the “better regime” have been overshadowed by more realistic, self-serving concerns. Two pivotal figures in this transition are Niccolò Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes. They represent a shift toward pragmatic political analysis that seeks to understand the realities of power, statecraft, and human nature. This paper explores how Machiavelli and Hobbes lower the aims of politics, the implications of their views for citizens and leaders, and the foundational shift toward realism in political theory.

The Aims Established by Machiavelli and Hobbes

Machiavelli, in his seminal work The Prince, argues that the main aim of politics is the maintenance of power and the stability of the state. He famously asserts that "the ends justify the means," indicating a departure from moral considerations in political decision-making (Machiavelli, 1998, p. 49). Machiavelli's statecraft prioritizes effectiveness over ethics, suggesting that leaders must often engage in deceit, manipulation, and cruelty to achieve their objectives. Thus, the overarching aim becomes not the promotion of virtue or the collective good, but rather the survival and authority of the ruler and the state.
Conversely, Hobbes, in Leviathan, presents a similarly pragmatic approach to politics, grounded in his characterization of human nature. For Hobbes, the natural state of humanity is one of fear and self-interest. In this "state of nature," life is characterized by "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" conditions (Hobbes, 1994, p. 67). Therefore, the primary aim of political authority, in Hobbes's view, is to establish order and security through a social contract, allowing individuals to escape from chaos and achieve self-preservation. Again, moral considerations take a back seat to the practical necessities of governance and survival.

Impact on Ordinary Citizens and Political Authority

The aims proposed by Machiavelli and Hobbes have significant implications for the responsibilities of citizens and leaders. In Machiavelli's framework, ordinary citizens are viewed primarily as instruments for the political aims of their rulers. Their role is to accept the legitimacy of power and maintain the stability of the state. Citizens must be adaptable, recognizing that their welfare is subordinate to the needs of the political order. They are urged to cultivate the personal qualities necessary for survival in a fluctuating political landscape, including loyalty to their ruler and an understanding of realpolitik—an appreciation for the pragmatics of governance (Machiavelli, 1998, p. 95).
Hobbes's social contract theory likewise impacts the rights and responsibilities of ordinary citizens. By entering into a covenant with a sovereign authority, citizens willingly cede specific rights in exchange for protection and order. The obligations of the subjects are clear: they must obey the sovereign absolutist power to enjoy the benefits of security. The significance of Hobbes’s conception lies in the idea that citizens have little recourse against unjust authority, provided that the sovereign maintains order. This aligns well with Machiavelli’s emphasis on stability over virtue, as loyalty and obedience become paramount in the face of potential chaos.
On the leadership front, both thinkers emphasize the importance of practical wisdom over ethical considerations. Machiavelli encourages rulers to be shrewd, valuing cunning and pragmatism in securing their power (Machiavelli, 1998, p. 122). Similarly, Hobbes insists that authority must often operate outside conventional moral norms to maintain peace and security. Rulers, therefore, have an obligation to act in ways that may contradict ethical principles in pursuit of their legitimate political aims (Hobbes, 1994, p. 89).

The Lure of Authoritarianism

The realization of such pragmatism leads to concerns about political authority and its potential to manifest in authoritarianism. Contemporary examples abound, with leaders like Viktor Orbán, Vladimir Putin, and Jair Bolsonaro being described as embracing Machiavellian and Hobbesian principles in their governance. Their concentration of power mirrors Machiavelli’s recommendations for rulers to exercise authority with an iron fist and to employ deceit when necessary to maintain their position (Machiavelli, 1998, p. 52). They often reject accountability to other branches of government, seeking to fortify their rule without the checks and balances essential in democratic systems.
Hobbes’s insights into the absolute authority also resonate in these contexts. Political leaders often justify their centralization of power as a means to ensure security and order, aligning with Hobbes’s premise that fear of chaos necessitates strong governance (Hobbes, 1994, p. 116). This raises philosophical and ethical dilemmas about a government's relationship with its citizens, as rulers may manipulate the security narrative to suppress dissent and maintain their grip on power.

Areas of Disagreement

Despite their converging views on the aims of politics, Machiavelli and Hobbes diverge in their perspectives on human nature and societal organization. Machiavelli adopts a more nuanced approach that recognizes the variability of human behavior and the capacity for virtue. He acknowledges that while individuals may act out of self-interest, they also possess the capability to act for collective benefits when bound by a strong ruler (Machiavelli, 1998, p. 149).
Hobbes’s view appears more deterministic, positing that individuals are irrevocably driven by self-interest and fear, leading to a more cynical perspective on political relationships (Hobbes, 1994, p. 112). This difference influences how both figures perceive the potential for flourishing societies: Machiavelli holds onto the possibility that a ruler can inspire civic virtue, while Hobbes's vision limits possibilities strictly to the maintenance of order through fear and coercion.

Conclusion

In conclusion, both Machiavelli and Hobbes signify a crucial departure from classical political ideals toward pragmatic frameworks that prioritize power and stability over ethical considerations. Their delineation of political aims reflects an understanding that realism often trumps idealism in the context of governance. The implications of their views on the obligations of ordinary citizens and political leaders suggest a profound dialectic between authority and individual freedoms, culminating in a significant analysis of the contemporary political landscape characterized by authoritarian governance. This essential lowering of political ambitions marks the transition to modern political theory, emphasizing the realities shaping human behavior and the structures of power.

References

1. Hobbes, T. (1994). Leviathan. Cambridge University Press.
2. Machiavelli, N. (1998). The Prince. Oxford University Press.
3. Skinner, Q. (1978). The Foundations of Modern Political Thought. Cambridge University Press.
4. Strauss, L. (1963). Natural Right and History. University of Chicago Press.
5. Berlin, I. (1996). The Proper Study of Mankind. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
6. Niemeyer, J. (2005). Machiavelli’s Influence on Modern Political Thought. Cambridge University Press.
7. Boucher, D., & Kelly, P. (2009). Political Theory: A Reader. Oxford University Press.
8. Tuck, R. (2002). The Rights of War and Peace. Oxford University Press.
9. Ahrens, W. (2017). Machiavelli’s Methods and Modern Politics. Yale University Press.
10. Runciman, D. (2006). Political Thought: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press.
This comprehensive examination underscores the relevance of Machiavelli and Hobbes in understanding modern political dynamics and the continuing relevance of their thoughts on self-interest, authority, and the pragmatic underpinnings of political theory.