Nature is the elementary or intrinsic feature of an entity, especially when seen as a characteristic of it. When we refer to ‘nature’ we will discuss it relative to ‘human nature’, which is the essential metaphysical argumentation of distinguishing traits that humans tend to hold naturally; in other words the human way of thinking, feeling, and acting. The origin of human nature is perhaps the ultimate question that aims to explore the complete ethical, political, and theological spectrum of western philosophy and therefore political understanding of humans. Human nature can be defined as the nucleus of our way of life, it can also be said to regard the constraints and hinderances that impede living a good life, and thus achieve total happiness.
…show more content…
Whether one should act morally in order to get their way or follow political norms, such that immorality would be deemed as evil and counterproductive in the way of achieving happiness. Machiavelli advocates a choice — between choosing good or evil — that would have the Prince learn when the best option suited his needs. In a Machiavellian world the necessity to survive superseded the concept of ethical decision making, and thus exploitative tactics of deceit are non-impeding towards achieving purpose. The most distinguishing difference between both thinkers (Machiavelli and Aquinas) is that, respectively, one considers success to be the governing purpose in life, while the other contrasts this viewpoint and refers to the pursuit of happiness as the primary ‘objective’ of human nature. Another important distinction is that Aquinas believes, “Everything that acts does so for an end which possesses the quality of goodness” In comparison, Machiavelli, believes that humans are by nature self-centred. Aquinas places stress over the moral outlook and man’s relation to the creator, unlike Machiavelli’s argument for man, that contents the possibility of success without possessing traits of virtue, as long as one appears to possess them. However, in the words of Aquinas, only through acts of virtuous nature can we arrive at the culmination point; through piety we forge a path that leads to the attainment of happiness in the totality of human life, because God is pure and being therefore the only means of actualising our natural happiness. Thomistic ideology, in contrast to Machiavelli, explains to us that men are made in the image and likeness of God and on the humanity of Christ as the way to God , as highlighted by the reply to Obj. 2 Q
Whether one should act morally in order to get their way or follow political norms, such that immorality would be deemed as evil and counterproductive in the way of achieving happiness. Machiavelli advocates a choice — between choosing good or evil — that would have the Prince learn when the best option suited his needs. In a Machiavellian world the necessity to survive superseded the concept of ethical decision making, and thus exploitative tactics of deceit are non-impeding towards achieving purpose. The most distinguishing difference between both thinkers (Machiavelli and Aquinas) is that, respectively, one considers success to be the governing purpose in life, while the other contrasts this viewpoint and refers to the pursuit of happiness as the primary ‘objective’ of human nature. Another important distinction is that Aquinas believes, “Everything that acts does so for an end which possesses the quality of goodness” In comparison, Machiavelli, believes that humans are by nature self-centred. Aquinas places stress over the moral outlook and man’s relation to the creator, unlike Machiavelli’s argument for man, that contents the possibility of success without possessing traits of virtue, as long as one appears to possess them. However, in the words of Aquinas, only through acts of virtuous nature can we arrive at the culmination point; through piety we forge a path that leads to the attainment of happiness in the totality of human life, because God is pure and being therefore the only means of actualising our natural happiness. Thomistic ideology, in contrast to Machiavelli, explains to us that men are made in the image and likeness of God and on the humanity of Christ as the way to God , as highlighted by the reply to Obj. 2 Q