Comparing Mores Utopia, Machiavellis The Discourses, and Hobbes The

Relationship Between the Sovereign and the Subjects inMores Utopia, Machiavellis The Discourses, and Hobbes The Leviathan Thomas More, Niccolo Machiavelli, and Thomas Hobbes offer models for the relationship between the milkweed butterfly and the people in their works Utopia, The Discourses, and The Leviathan. Each argues that ensuring the common good of the people should be the primary goal of the autonomous. However, they differ in the specifics of their descriptions of this relationship and in their explanations of the self-directeds motivation for valuing the prosperity of the people. An examination of the specified passages in each of these works will clarify the comparison of their models for this relationship. Mores discussion of the sovereign occurs in the context of the discussion of a monarch as the trustee of the welfare of the people. The king is a common citizen who has been invested with the authority or majesty of sovereignty. He is then distinguished from the res t of the population by the responsibilities he has to them and the powers that are inherent in these responsibilities. He is bound to fulfill these responsibilities and not to abuse the privileges by the threat of rebellion from the poor and, therefore, discontented people that would result from incompetent or misused sovereignty. He is also constrained by his accept immanent desire for prestige, and his prestige is dependent on his subjects wealth and well being. To desire this kind of prestige, he must be a virtuous man. Without this virtue, his vices of pride and sloth are likely to reduce him to taking his subjects property in order to serve his greed and to attempt their pacification by reducing them to abject poverty. If his own prid... ...larly influenced by the monarchs level of incompetence or corruption. All triad sovereigns rely upon virtu, that is, effectiveness in ensuring the common good of their subjects however, all three have different definitions of what const itutes virtu. In Mores sovereignty, it is controlling human nature and channeling it into promoting the general prosperity. For Machiavellis sovereignty, it is the result of the pursuit of self-interested goals, both on the straggle of the ruler and the ruled. In Hobbes sovereignty, it is the logical result of fear and of human, peace seeking, nature. Works CitedHobbes, Thomas. Leviathan, ed. Edwin Curley (Indianapolis Hackett Publishing Company, 1994. More, Thomas. Utopia. Trans. Clarence H. Miller. 2nd ed. Yale University Press. 2001Walker, Leslie J. The Discourses of Niccolo Machiavelli Routledge, 2013