Liberal and Conservative Views of Immanuel Kant and Niccolo Machiavelli: The success of the governance of a state relies on leaders methods of gaining and retaining power while constructing society. Immanuel Kant’s ([1784] 2013) book Answer the Question: “What is Enlightenment?” sets the foundation of gaining and retaining power while constructing society around the process of enlightening subjects and eventually transferring political power. Niccolo Machiavelli’s ([1513] 2006) The Prince uses the method of holding power and knowledge solely to the individual in authority. This paper will acknowledge both methods of gaining and retaining power, compare and contrast both philosophers methods, and include the input of my own opinion in relation
…show more content…
Kant asserts that this is done through the relationship of religion, and freedom. In Kant’s teachings he suggests that religion and freedom are closely related, and with the knowledge of religion the freedom to rationally distinguish right from wrong will follow. With the notion of religion guiding freedom Kant established that this concept should be a focus for political leaders and moral political decision-making. Kant ([1784] 2013) sates “If it is now asked whether we at present live in an enlightened age, the answer is: No, but we do live in an age of enlightenment”. Through Kant’s quote I interpret that the expectation of a leader is to enforce freedom by enlightening his subjects through the actions of becoming a guardian. In Immanuel Kant’s ([1784] 2013) Answer the Question: “What is Enlightenment?” he secures that benevolent guardians mirror puppet masters, guiding an individual and distributing false information to promote fear with enlightenment. A leader is not meant to discourage subjects, but rather encourage their discovery of knowledge. With the knowledge of rational thinking obtained by subjects Kant advises a leader to slowly transfer political power upon them. I feel that a form of equality is being promoted through the transference of political power since a leader is releasing …show more content…
In Machiavelli 's The Prince it is clear that he has a negative view of human nature. Immanuel Kant’s ([1784] 2013) view on human nature in relation to enlightenment is that “Laziness and cowardice are the reasons why such a large proportion of men, even when nature has hong emancipated them from the alien guidance (naturaliter majorettes) nevertheless gladly remain Immature for life”. From my knowledge on both philosophers I formulate the opinion that Kant’s views of a leader is an authority figure that embodies a teacher while Machiavelli 's view is a leader that is strictly a dictator, however, both philosophers make it apparent that people are in fact in need of a leader. I believe that with leadership comes the question of how much concern there should be on a subject’s opinion. Machiavelli suggests that a prince should concerned with a subjects opinion, but must remain cruel to avoid disobedience. Immanuel Kant’s perspective is that subjects should be allowed to speak freely about leaders on their own time but should remain obedient working under his command. Both parties do however acknowledge that a subject’s opinion on a leader should be brought to attention. Immanuel Kant’s views of gaining and retaining power reflect a liberal leaders view, focusing on the topics of freedom and
Kant asserts that this is done through the relationship of religion, and freedom. In Kant’s teachings he suggests that religion and freedom are closely related, and with the knowledge of religion the freedom to rationally distinguish right from wrong will follow. With the notion of religion guiding freedom Kant established that this concept should be a focus for political leaders and moral political decision-making. Kant ([1784] 2013) sates “If it is now asked whether we at present live in an enlightened age, the answer is: No, but we do live in an age of enlightenment”. Through Kant’s quote I interpret that the expectation of a leader is to enforce freedom by enlightening his subjects through the actions of becoming a guardian. In Immanuel Kant’s ([1784] 2013) Answer the Question: “What is Enlightenment?” he secures that benevolent guardians mirror puppet masters, guiding an individual and distributing false information to promote fear with enlightenment. A leader is not meant to discourage subjects, but rather encourage their discovery of knowledge. With the knowledge of rational thinking obtained by subjects Kant advises a leader to slowly transfer political power upon them. I feel that a form of equality is being promoted through the transference of political power since a leader is releasing …show more content…
In Machiavelli 's The Prince it is clear that he has a negative view of human nature. Immanuel Kant’s ([1784] 2013) view on human nature in relation to enlightenment is that “Laziness and cowardice are the reasons why such a large proportion of men, even when nature has hong emancipated them from the alien guidance (naturaliter majorettes) nevertheless gladly remain Immature for life”. From my knowledge on both philosophers I formulate the opinion that Kant’s views of a leader is an authority figure that embodies a teacher while Machiavelli 's view is a leader that is strictly a dictator, however, both philosophers make it apparent that people are in fact in need of a leader. I believe that with leadership comes the question of how much concern there should be on a subject’s opinion. Machiavelli suggests that a prince should concerned with a subjects opinion, but must remain cruel to avoid disobedience. Immanuel Kant’s perspective is that subjects should be allowed to speak freely about leaders on their own time but should remain obedient working under his command. Both parties do however acknowledge that a subject’s opinion on a leader should be brought to attention. Immanuel Kant’s views of gaining and retaining power reflect a liberal leaders view, focusing on the topics of freedom and