Machiavelli holds a very cynical view of human nature which is often accompanied by concepts of immorality, dishonesty, and hypocrisy. Machiavelli sees human nature as “ungrateful and unreliable; humans naturally lie and fake, and they’re greedy for wealth” (The Prince,88). In his view, man’s devotion to themselves and moving up the social hierarchy is their prime instinct, and when generosity and “gratitude is owed, it is forgotten the moment it is inconvenient” (The Prince, 89). Machiavelli sees human nature in such a negative light, basing it wholly on our self-serving and self-fulfilling interests.
This greatly differs from the English philosopher, John Locke. John Locke is often seen as one of the first “humanist” philosophers that realized much of the change from medieval philosophy to Enlightenment. Locke was a devout “Christian” philosopher whose ethics much relied upon the presumption that the “true ground of morality can only be the Will and Law of God” (Essay, I.iii.6). Lockean ethics rests heavily on this idea that God gives us the principles of morality which constitute human nature. Lockean view of human nature aligns closely with the Christian principles of human nature in that God instills virtues in our minds to strive towards. Although we may be tempted to succumb to our simple desires of greed and power, Locke believes we can overcome the temptation of simple desires through “suspending the execution of satisfying any of these desires” (Essay, II.xxi.47). In other words, Locke believes we can discipline our mind to suspend any satisfaction of our selfish desires by staying faithful to the laws God provided to us. The simple desires Locke specifies are our instinctual desires for greed and power which Machiavelli believes drives human nature. But more importantly, these instinctual desires and pleasures are simple and finite, except humans are complex beings which strive towards “infinite and eternal joys of heaven to be our greatest and thus most pleasurable good” (Essay, II.xxi.37–38). This idea that ‘infinite and eternal joys of heaven’ can be achieved through God’s guidance by suppressing finite selfish pleasures. Despite the devout divine characteristics Locke believes derive from our human nature, he does acknowledge that people do stray away from infinite and eternal joys and live a life in pursuit of our simple desires of greed and power. However, in response, Locke would say people who pursue these simple desires do so because “most people are convinced that they can truly be happy without it [desires of heaven and eternal joys]” (Essay, II.xxi.56).
John Locke views Christian principles as the hallmark to living in accordance with human nature, but Machiavelli describes “Christian Principles as admirable, but not applicable; the idea that all human behavior could be assessed in relation to one set of values was naïve and utopian” (The Prince, xxxiii). This illustrates a fine line between the two opposing views, because Machiavellian human nature ignores the principles of Christianity not because they are intrinsically wrong, but because they are a naïve sense of fiction. Machiavelli’s view on human nature is harsh and unchanging while Locke sees the undying potential in Christian values. Although Locke acknowledges, he does not agree, that happiness can be found in living outside the Christian set of values. Machiavelli would likely respond that human nature does not derive from Christian principles because leaders and rulers must live outside these values in order to survive.
Supposing Machiavelli and Locke struggle to find common ground with respect to human nature, on the other hand, they share quite a lot of common ground in their political philosophies. John Locke describes in his Two Treatises of Government that government is wholly necessary, but in order to refrain from corruption: believes in the system of separation of powers. After all, the legislative power in John Locke’s day was shared by the House of Commons, the House of Lords, and the King. Since all three needed to agree for something to become law, all three are part of the legislative power (1.151).”. On the same hand, Machiavelli declares himself a supporter of libertarianism and Republicanism in that the power of the state should reside with the people with very limited government, something Locke and Machiavelli would probably agree on. Which is interesting considering Machiavelli’s cynical view of human nature, because he believes the people should have the supreme governing power through electoral representatives, yet he believes the people incapable of separating their self-interest from the greater good. Meanwhile, John Locke believes the necessity in government should rule based on the virtues of human nature, not its Machiavellian vices. Nevertheless, Locke admits that government is ultimately necessary to be “used for the protection of the rights of its own citizens (Two Treatises 1.92, 2.88, 2.95, 2.131, 2.147) even though he believes human nature naturally ascends towards the virtues of heaven and God. It would seem that both Machiavelli and Locke agree that government is necessary to protect the rights and liberties of its citizens. They also both agree that the people are the supreme body of power causing both Locke and Machiavelli to favor Republicanism over that of traditional Monarchy despite their inconsistent views with human nature and government. They both believe that the State should be separated by a system of legislative governing bodies. But they disagree on what aspect of human nature needs governing; Locke believes laws should be based in our natural virtues, but Machiavelli believes laws should restrict our natural direction towards our selfish desires.