 |
| http://thedesignhome.com/wpcontent/ uploads/2010/10/white-house- conference-room.jpg |
 |
| http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ commons/e/e2/Portrait_of_Niccolò_ achiavelli _by_Santi_di_Tito.jpg |
 |
| http://www.nndb.com/peopl691/0000 31598/hobbes.jpg |
The first thing that Machiavelli says to you when you walk in is, "If you take control of a state, you should make a list of all the crimes you have to commit and do them all at once. That way you will not have to…"(p. 23). But before Machiavelli could finish his sentence, Hobbes interrupts. In a quiet voice, Hobbes says, "The first branch of which rule, containeth the first, and fundamental law of nature; which is to seek peace, and follow it. The second, the sum of the right of nature; which is, by all means we can, to defend ourselves"(p. 160).
The meeting goes on for about six hours.
Machiavelli suggests that you intervene Syria and take charge immediately instead of being indecisive. Hobbes, on the other hand, asks you to wait a little longer to make sure that your final decision is best for the United States and is a peaceful decision.
Who would you listen to; Machiavelli or Hobbes? And why?
Machiavelli suggests you avoid half-measures and the indecisiveness that is accompanied by only getting you feet wet. I doubt Machiavelli would suggest invading every single country so logically, there has to be a decision for each country, whether or not to invade. While it may be seen as indecisive, deciding not to invade, or to wait to see if you should invade (as Hobbes would suggest), is not a half-measure, and thus I don't think Machiavelli would complain too much. Especially compared to how much he would advise against going in half-prepared as Hobbes is suggesting you avoid by waiting a little longer to make sure the decision is best. In this instance, Machiavelli advises a course of action IF you take control of a state. This is assuming you have already made a decision. As far as I can tell, your summation of Hobbes' advice it to wait to make sure the decision is best for the United States and I doubt Machiavelli would argue against making a careful decision rather than hasty action.
ReplyDeleteAs for their underlying suggestions, Machiavelli of invasion and taking control of states and Hobbes of seeking peace, it really depends on your personal philosophy and whether or not you believe seeking peace and stability is best found through preemptive aggression to pacify Syria or steering clear of the whole situation altogether. As to the role the U.S. should play in Syria and which adviser makes the most convincing argument, Hobbes' theory has been tested and prolonged avoidance of the region has not brought peace. The U.S. has avoided bloodshed but the people fighting in the Civil War stiff suffer and I'm not sure which Hobbes would prefer. A regional peace after initial involvement or sustained violence while our decision is 'peaceful' and we don't interfere. On the flipside, Machiavelli is not concerned with attaining regional peace, only that if we invade, it should be quickly as to preserve as much stability overall, but focused on the U.S. Overall I guess I am still undecided.
If he were alive today, I'd like to imagine Machiavelli would support going into Syria, if only for the fact that he recommends going to war as soon as possible if war is inevitable. "The Romans never allowed a trouble spot to remain simply to avoid going to war over it, because they knew that wars don't just go away, they are only postponed to someone else's advantage." The longer we sit back and wait the more the situation deteriorates, and if we wait, as Hobbes would suggest, then perhaps any help we can offer will be little more than an empty gesture to appear helpful to the rest of the world. I am, of course, hesitant to go guns blazing into any war zone, however, if I was the UN instead of the US then I would absolutely call for intervention. What's the point of a world government if that government can't provide any security to its members? Machiavelli can provide the most useful advice to this scenario, while he doesn't have an exact situation in The Prince or The Discourses like this, I think he would advise against waiting. The rest of the previous quote I used I believe supports this, "They never went by that saying which you constantly hear from the wiseacres of our day, that time heals all things. They trusted rather their own character and prudence— knowing perfectly well that time contains the seeds of all things, good as well as bad." Hobbes is a nice guy, but if he wants to keep his job on my staff then he should remember that Machiavelli is the one who doesn't speak English, I shouldn't need a translator for every sentence of his ENGLISH text.
ReplyDelete