Role of Government as a Socializing Agent and the Role of Morality in Effective Social Control
Question
"Thomas Hobbes (Leviathan) maintained that for social control to exist, there must be strong government to ensure moral and social harmony. Niccolo Machiavelli (The Prince) however, contended that social benefits for social stability and security can be achieved in the face of moral corruption."
In about 2000 words, write an essay based on research found in the two books above that talks about the role of government as a socializing agent and the role of morality in effective social control.
The basis of both Leviathan written by Thomas Hobbes and Niccolo Machiavelli's The Prince revolves around the use of Natural Law as well as the methods of governing people vis-à-vis the writers' perspectives on virtues and morality in the existence of a monarch. In my understanding, both books provide an interactive and discursive yet subjective extension towards the idea of government and its people, more so to the rights as well as the nature of human beings. Both books give insights to the intellectual minds of their writers, allowing me to delve into issues which I have never thought before, some of which are still applicable till today. I shall begin with my version of practical criticism on Leviathan, thereafter move to Machiavelli's The Prince, giving my perspectives on what I feel is a better form of government and the reasons I deem as appropriate to answer the requirement of this assignment; on the role of government as a socializing agent as well as the role of morality in the effectiveness of social control.
Leviathan by Hobbes from how I've read and interpreted is generally the ideal, morally upright ideas or conventions rising from the need to voice out opinions in relation to the exisiting Civil War that was still persisting in times when the writer expresses himself through the words found in the book. I may be judgmental when stating the above, however I feel that the ideas and thoughts brought forward by Hobbes are not all utopic, I will mention
"Thomas Hobbes (Leviathan) maintained that for social control to exist, there must be strong government to ensure moral and social harmony. Niccolo Machiavelli (The Prince) however, contended that social benefits for social stability and security can be achieved in the face of moral corruption."
In about 2000 words, write an essay based on research found in the two books above that talks about the role of government as a socializing agent and the role of morality in effective social control.
The basis of both Leviathan written by Thomas Hobbes and Niccolo Machiavelli's The Prince revolves around the use of Natural Law as well as the methods of governing people vis-à-vis the writers' perspectives on virtues and morality in the existence of a monarch. In my understanding, both books provide an interactive and discursive yet subjective extension towards the idea of government and its people, more so to the rights as well as the nature of human beings. Both books give insights to the intellectual minds of their writers, allowing me to delve into issues which I have never thought before, some of which are still applicable till today. I shall begin with my version of practical criticism on Leviathan, thereafter move to Machiavelli's The Prince, giving my perspectives on what I feel is a better form of government and the reasons I deem as appropriate to answer the requirement of this assignment; on the role of government as a socializing agent as well as the role of morality in the effectiveness of social control.
Leviathan by Hobbes from how I've read and interpreted is generally the ideal, morally upright ideas or conventions rising from the need to voice out opinions in relation to the exisiting Civil War that was still persisting in times when the writer expresses himself through the words found in the book. I may be judgmental when stating the above, however I feel that the ideas and thoughts brought forward by Hobbes are not all utopic, I will mention