Introduction to Political Theory Exam #1
The general will or the prince? When considering which state would be the most ideal to live in, one might find deciding between the aforementioned concepts of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Niccolo Machiavelli, respectively, to be an utterly difficult task. I find that a society in which Rousseau’s general will operates in its best capacity is far superior to that with an ideal prince as its leader.
To begin, the general will must be defined in order for the advantages of a society using the concept of the general will to be evident. The general will happens when an entire body has alienated themselves and put the will of the body above their own private interests. In other words, an individual does what is best for the body, because as part of the body, if any portion of the body were to suffer in some way, regardless of whether or not the individual contributed to the problem, the individual will still suffer, because he is a part of the body. By the same logic, if the general will is operating in its best capacity, and the body experienced something positive …show more content…
The will of the people does not matter. Machiavelli’s prince is unbelievably self-preserving. For example, the prince must be absolutely engulfed by war at all times, and if he is not, he must be paranoid that he soon will be. A believer in the prince would argue that this focus on war is beneficial to the citizens of this society. This would be true if the self-preservation extended beyond himself and to his subjects. Nothing matters to the prince so long as he is still the prince when the dust settles. If we were to continue on the subject of war in the society with Rousseau’s general will, we will discover that the alienated body would be “soldiers by duty, none by profession.” Who needs to hire soldiers when you have a state whose members are inherently passionate about the state they belong
The general will or the prince? When considering which state would be the most ideal to live in, one might find deciding between the aforementioned concepts of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Niccolo Machiavelli, respectively, to be an utterly difficult task. I find that a society in which Rousseau’s general will operates in its best capacity is far superior to that with an ideal prince as its leader.
To begin, the general will must be defined in order for the advantages of a society using the concept of the general will to be evident. The general will happens when an entire body has alienated themselves and put the will of the body above their own private interests. In other words, an individual does what is best for the body, because as part of the body, if any portion of the body were to suffer in some way, regardless of whether or not the individual contributed to the problem, the individual will still suffer, because he is a part of the body. By the same logic, if the general will is operating in its best capacity, and the body experienced something positive …show more content…
The will of the people does not matter. Machiavelli’s prince is unbelievably self-preserving. For example, the prince must be absolutely engulfed by war at all times, and if he is not, he must be paranoid that he soon will be. A believer in the prince would argue that this focus on war is beneficial to the citizens of this society. This would be true if the self-preservation extended beyond himself and to his subjects. Nothing matters to the prince so long as he is still the prince when the dust settles. If we were to continue on the subject of war in the society with Rousseau’s general will, we will discover that the alienated body would be “soldiers by duty, none by profession.” Who needs to hire soldiers when you have a state whose members are inherently passionate about the state they belong