The article discusses the perspectives of Machiavelli, Montaigne, and Descartes on monarchy and stability. Machiavelli argued that hereditary rulers could maintain stable governance more effectively than new leaders, shaped by his own experiences in tumultuous Italy. Descartes echoed this sentiment while emphasizing his moral duty to obey the laws and customs of his country, seeking tranquility amidst chaos. Furthermore, Montaigne’s reflections on duty in the context of civil war revealed a belief that justice and kingly virtue are paramount in ensuring stability. Together, their views suggest a historical preference for authority to safeguard public welfare.
Hereditary states are much less difficult to hold than new states. If such a ruler is ordinarily diligent and competent his government will always be secure.
My first moral maxim was to obey the laws and customs of my country, keeping to the religion in which I was brought up.
Machiavelli's implicit approval of the relatively stable hereditary monarchies reflected his bitter personal experience of warring Italian city states.
Descartes supported the legitimate authority of his King as a moral choice, aiming for security and prizing tranquility over everything.
Collection
[
|
...
]