Machiavelli's Theories Of Injustice
political authority because while they are self interested, they are also rational(Hobbes pg. 184). He claims that the state of nature is like a state of war, and should be avoided.
“To this war of every man against every man, this also in consequent; that nothing can be unjust. The notions of right and wrong, justice and injustice have there no place. Where there is no common power, there is no law, where no law, no injustice. Force, and fraud, are in war the cardinal virtues” (Hobbes pg. 188).
He states that justice occurs when people were equal in protection. Hobbes claims that if we are to protect ourselves we should form contracts. Injustice is the constraint placed on the people by those who abuse the valid contracts. He says, “Injustice …show more content…
He chose to focus on the morality aspect of justice, a defined it as being amoral. Justice is neither good nor bad, it is whatever the “prince” desires it to be. He theorized that good rulers would have to put aside ethical concerns of justice, in order to ensure the stability of the State. There is no right or wrong in his theory, the goal of the ruler is to protect his rule to the extent of his power and that would protect the order of the State. He believed that he lived in a degraded society that needed to be fixed because the people did not have a strong ruler to fix it. People are self-interested in nature and need a strong leader to set them on the right path. In chapter VIII of the Prince, Machiavelli believes that the ends justify the means, a favorable outcome excuses any wrongs committed to attain it. “So let the prince win and maintain his state: the means will always be judged honourable, and will be praised by everyone”(Chapter XVIII). Machiavelli gives precedence to keeping of power over ethical considerations to meet that end. He claims that power will always be celebrated and that the way you attain it really doesn’t matter. Justice is doing whatever the person in power believes is necessary to retain stability and power.
Although both of these political theorist have different ideas on what justice is, they both agree that it is not inherently good or evil. Thomas
“To this war of every man against every man, this also in consequent; that nothing can be unjust. The notions of right and wrong, justice and injustice have there no place. Where there is no common power, there is no law, where no law, no injustice. Force, and fraud, are in war the cardinal virtues” (Hobbes pg. 188).
He states that justice occurs when people were equal in protection. Hobbes claims that if we are to protect ourselves we should form contracts. Injustice is the constraint placed on the people by those who abuse the valid contracts. He says, “Injustice …show more content…
He chose to focus on the morality aspect of justice, a defined it as being amoral. Justice is neither good nor bad, it is whatever the “prince” desires it to be. He theorized that good rulers would have to put aside ethical concerns of justice, in order to ensure the stability of the State. There is no right or wrong in his theory, the goal of the ruler is to protect his rule to the extent of his power and that would protect the order of the State. He believed that he lived in a degraded society that needed to be fixed because the people did not have a strong ruler to fix it. People are self-interested in nature and need a strong leader to set them on the right path. In chapter VIII of the Prince, Machiavelli believes that the ends justify the means, a favorable outcome excuses any wrongs committed to attain it. “So let the prince win and maintain his state: the means will always be judged honourable, and will be praised by everyone”(Chapter XVIII). Machiavelli gives precedence to keeping of power over ethical considerations to meet that end. He claims that power will always be celebrated and that the way you attain it really doesn’t matter. Justice is doing whatever the person in power believes is necessary to retain stability and power.
Although both of these political theorist have different ideas on what justice is, they both agree that it is not inherently good or evil. Thomas