Most of Nadine's seminar paper covered what I had read and (mostly) understood e.g. Hobbes and Locke, but just like the previous seminar, it also helped me with some of the more challenging aspects of it.
I hadn't made any notes on the guy called Savonarola, so I was able to acquire some knowledge on him, his story also goes some way to explaining why Machiavelli actually wrote 'The Prince'. Savonarola was anti - renaissance and organised 'The Bonfire of the Vanities' - this was where his followers collected every item that he deemed to be 'sinful' or might lead to sin e.g. art, books, fine clothes and musical instruments, they then burnt them. Nice. As you can imagine, old Sav wasn't the most well liked fellow after his little stunt and was executed a year or so later.
Savonarola wasn't just anti - renaissance, he was against the Medici family - a very important and influential family in the renaissance period in Italy who loved fine arts and books. Machiavelli, on the other hand wanted a job with the Medicis, so he wrote 'The Prince' mainly to please the Medicis. The book was a 'how-to guide' for rulers. It explained some rules for war, for example; always support the weaker side because at then end of the war, you will be the dominant force and the armed prophets win, the unarmed ones always fail. It also said that rulers should seem to be virtuous and religious and keep politics and ethics separate. He also advocated free competition to be the ruler and that to keep the power, a ruler must keep the government and the people happy.
Machiavelli was also a strong believer in virtue - getting what you want, by whatever means.
During the seminar, we discussed the ideas surrounding the question "Would you would kill someone if they were pointing a gun in your face?". My un-philosophical view is yes, if you feel that your life is in significant danger, you can kill them. Let me give you the example of Cecil Coley, his flower shop was raided by 4 (suspected) armed robbers whilst he was there, Coley acted to defend himself and the shop (his property) by stabbing one of the (suspected) robbers. Coley was arrested on suspicion of murder but was told by the CPS that he "acted lawfully to defend his shop" and rightfully so.
Here comes some philosophy...in Hobbes' view, if you feel their is eminent danger to you life, you have the right to kill him/her. You must pre-empt them doing you or your property harm.
According to Hobbes and his 'state of nature', we have a problem with perceiving danger and that everyone sees risk differently - this is a potential problem with his 'right to kill' idea; if everyone perceives the danger of a man with a gun walking towards them [who is 100 metres away] differently, then everyone's reaction will be different and they may interrupt the situation incorrectly and make the wrong decision.
Locke holds a similar view - (in Locke's opinion, your life and your property are the same - this is akin to capitalism), he believed that you could kill someone who you think poses significant danger to your life and/or property. Locke also believed that everyone is entitled to life, liberty and property.
TB 2011
No comments:
Post a Comment