How do the views of Machiavelli, Hobbes and Grotius differ and what Essay

How do the views of Machiavelli, Hobbes and Grotius differ and what aspect of smart set influenced these theories - Essay ExampleTo his mind the rectitude was a necessary and rational perversion of nature, part of the civil contract that governed all societies - a compromise in order for men to live peacefully. Grotius, on the other hand, would not accept the separation of nature and the rightfulnessfulness - the true law arose out of human nature and, more pertinently to him, the nature of God. As much(prenominal), the law is not merely a series of arbitrary get holds with which those in a neighborly group (say, the state) atomic number 18 forced to comply. It is a base for all interaction, including interaction between states. As such Grotius points to a law than can be transnational, one that binds all cultures and societies.Machiavelli portrayed a system of political sympathies that, unlike the systems of government that had been propounded before, was based entirely on pragmatic concerns. In his writings there is a large break between the concept of things that are morally correct, and those things which are politic and advisable. As he says when regarding the way a attraction chooses to rule his people, it is a sound maxim that reprehensible actions may be justified by their effects (Brown et al. 266). This, then, completely changes the landscape of how one is to understand the law, which before Machiavelli had been considered the inscription of rules barring those practices which are profligate or against the common good. In other words, people had seen the law as something which was used to protect society from those members of it who wished to harm the rest. The only way the law is a consideration in Machiavellis philosophy is if the prince needs to quieten the populace and, by doing so, retain control of a kingdom. The rule of law, then, is merely used by the leader as an appeasement to the collective capacity of the masses. However - Ma chiavelli is quite clear - the law can be suspended at any time the prince sees fit, and it should offer no protection from the violence he exponent wish to inflict - It should be observed here that men should either be caressed or crushed (Brown et al. 260). An example that Machiavelli uses is the annexation of Milan by Louis XII and its subsequent loss to Ludovico. When Louis had taken the principality, the people expected received favours from him but, in actuality, he ruled as a tyrant. This made it nearly impossible for him to hold the Milan when a new attack came from without. For when the people who had opened the gate to Louis found that they did not receive the benefits they expected, they could not experience the oppressive rule of the new master (Brown et al. 258). Notice that Machiavelli does not treat the law (and other benefits, such as governmental structures, a wealthy privileged class, etc.) as a result of the organic suppuration of society. Rather, it is a tac tical means of a prince retaining power. Machiavelli does not identify the rule of just law as a prerequisite of the state, quite the opposite, it is one weapon in the arsenal that a ruler might use in order to perpetuate his rule.As we will soon find, Hobbes sees the law as a treaty between a group of people - a little like a social contract - which grows of necessity when enough people congregate. For Machiavelli, however, the rule of law is applied from above, by the prince or emperor. The rule of law is intrinsic to the