Advice to Young Leaders Response Paper #3: Erasmus and Hobbes
Both Thomas Hobbes and Erasmus, although born of different time periods, were political philosophers with humanist training. However, their similarities to not end there, as they both sought to provide a comprehensive framework for leadership through their works of The Education of a Christian Prince and Leviathan respectively. While Hobbes and Erasmus hold similar views on the structure of a state and that of man, they sharply disagree on the qualities that make a good leader.
Hobbes and Erasmus generally agree upon the nature of the state, although their views begin to subtly diverge when it comes to the nature of the citizens that populate them and their obligations to their …show more content…
To Hobbes “[c]onvenants, without the Sword, are but Words” and a ruler must be feared if their subjects are to interact with each other peacefully, which is “contrary to our naturall Passion” (Hobbes 117). In contrast, Erasmus believed it is far better to be loved than feared, writing that a ruler must “show love to others if he wants to be loved in return, so that he binds his citizens to him in the same way that God draws all the world together to himself, by deserving well of them” (Erasmus 66). As such, a leader following Erasmus’s teaching must dedicate themselves to public service and good works. This sharp difference between Erasmus and Hobbes’s conceptions of a good leader may stem from the framework of morality upon which they work. Hobbes’s work carries a tone that is far more secular than Erasmus’s, which enables him to take the stance that a good ruler must be feared. He declares that there is no inherent framework of ethics in the world, writing, “To this warre of every man against every man [...] nothing can be Unjust. [...] Justice , and Injustice are none of the Faculties neither of the Body, nor Mind. [...] They are Qualities, that relate to men in Society, not in Solitude” (Hobbes 90). Thus, to Hobbes, ethics are a product of the “society”. It is the leader that determines right and wrong, as the people have given their consent for the leader to do so in the interest of their peace and protection. Erasmus, on the other hand, writes with a Christian moral framework in mind. In his view, Christian morality cannot be separated from leadership, stating “what Christ teaches applies to no one more than to the prince” (Erasmus 23). For a Hobbesian leader, the lack of an overarching moral framework to be achieved allows them to determine right and wrong, as they are owed obedience as long as the social contract is fulfilled. In Erasmus’s world, a ruler losses
Both Thomas Hobbes and Erasmus, although born of different time periods, were political philosophers with humanist training. However, their similarities to not end there, as they both sought to provide a comprehensive framework for leadership through their works of The Education of a Christian Prince and Leviathan respectively. While Hobbes and Erasmus hold similar views on the structure of a state and that of man, they sharply disagree on the qualities that make a good leader.
Hobbes and Erasmus generally agree upon the nature of the state, although their views begin to subtly diverge when it comes to the nature of the citizens that populate them and their obligations to their …show more content…
To Hobbes “[c]onvenants, without the Sword, are but Words” and a ruler must be feared if their subjects are to interact with each other peacefully, which is “contrary to our naturall Passion” (Hobbes 117). In contrast, Erasmus believed it is far better to be loved than feared, writing that a ruler must “show love to others if he wants to be loved in return, so that he binds his citizens to him in the same way that God draws all the world together to himself, by deserving well of them” (Erasmus 66). As such, a leader following Erasmus’s teaching must dedicate themselves to public service and good works. This sharp difference between Erasmus and Hobbes’s conceptions of a good leader may stem from the framework of morality upon which they work. Hobbes’s work carries a tone that is far more secular than Erasmus’s, which enables him to take the stance that a good ruler must be feared. He declares that there is no inherent framework of ethics in the world, writing, “To this warre of every man against every man [...] nothing can be Unjust. [...] Justice , and Injustice are none of the Faculties neither of the Body, nor Mind. [...] They are Qualities, that relate to men in Society, not in Solitude” (Hobbes 90). Thus, to Hobbes, ethics are a product of the “society”. It is the leader that determines right and wrong, as the people have given their consent for the leader to do so in the interest of their peace and protection. Erasmus, on the other hand, writes with a Christian moral framework in mind. In his view, Christian morality cannot be separated from leadership, stating “what Christ teaches applies to no one more than to the prince” (Erasmus 23). For a Hobbesian leader, the lack of an overarching moral framework to be achieved allows them to determine right and wrong, as they are owed obedience as long as the social contract is fulfilled. In Erasmus’s world, a ruler losses