Machiavelli vs. Rousseau: View of Humanity Machiavelli shares his view on human nature, in which he firmly believes is the truth. It is that “all men are evil and that they will always express the wickedness of their spirit whenever they have the opportunity,” (Machiavelli, pg. 181). In response to this, I would say that not “all” men are evil despite the fact that men do things that are cruel sometime. To say that every man is a heartless creature is a bit exaggerating. However, I must confess that there are a number of people in the world who are truly evil. Donald Trump would be one example of that type of man. He plans to build a “wall” on the border of Mexico so that immigrants would not be able to enter the United States as well as deport …show more content…
Sure, the immigrants have broken the immigration law, but getting rid of them would do more harm than good. Rousseau, on the other hand, shares his view on human nature, which he says that “everyone must see that as the bonds of servitude are formed merely by the mutual dependence of men on one another and the reciprocal needs that unite them,” (Discourse, pg.14). From this point, I think that humans need each other to live, not by being in a relationship, but by providing each other support. In my opinion, it is Rousseau that makes a reasonable statement about the human nature since humans cannot live without love and mutual support.
De Las Casas and Diaz Del Castillo: Spaniards Both De Las Casas’s and Diaz Del Castillo’s story deal with the Spaniards conquering the Native American land, yet there are differences in the two stories. In De Las Casas, the author tells the story in an informative style similar to a textbook. The story, Of the Island Hispaniola, begins as follows: “In this Isle, which, as we have said, the Spaniards first attempted, the bloody slaughter and destruction of Men first began: for they violently forced away women and children to make them slaves, and ill-treated them…ripping up their bellies, tore them