Compare And Contrast Hobbes And Machiavelli

Hobbes believed that people each have their own ideas of right and wrong, and that there is no way to tell if a person’s version of right and wrong is universally right or wrong. Practically, that each person will create their own rationalization and will even kill another person for physical safety or securing

To begin with, an important theme to discuss is what the modern thinkers believe is the purpose of politics. Machiavelli believes that the purpose of politics is the glory and stability of the state, in which we will refer to as “statecraft”. Hobbes believes in the security of the population to be the purpose of politics. Hobbes wants ensure that the people’s lives are secure and that there is no opportunity of leaving them vulnerable to each other. Locke wants to protect certain natural rights: life, liberty and property. However, when Locke discusses in protecting and engaging people into politics who own property, it excludes the people who do not harbor property; which, at that time, was a majority of the population (234). Hobbes and Machiavelli are both interested in imposing order and avoid chaos. On the other hand,

Machiavelli and Hobbes shared the same views on that the Sovereign or Prince should implement rules that benefit them first while having the best interest of the people in mind. The difference being that the sovereign for Hobbes should exude the collective will of all the people while Machiavelli would argue for a Prince who would make more difficult decisions that might not be in line with the wants of the people in order to achieve certain ends. If fear is what keeps the people alive for Hobbes; than Machiavelli on the use of fear through punishment on behalf of the prince is in line with his philosophy... “The bond of love is one which men, wretched creatures they are, break when it is to their advantage to do so; but fear is strengthened by a dread of punishment which is always effective” The use of fear by the Sovereign runs very powerfully with Hobbes so that the people will

Machiavelli concentrated more on the way things should be and how to manipulate them for his own personal gain rather than for the betterment of the state. He was well-known for being a political thinker who believed that outcomes justified why things happened. A key aspect of Machiavelli’s concept of the Prince was that “men must either be caressed or annihilated” (Prince, 9). What Machiavelli meant by

Machiavelli’s interpretation of human nature was greatly shaped by his belief in God. In his writings, Machiavelli conceives that humans were given free will by God, and the choices made with such freedom established the innate flaws in humans. Based on that, he attributes the successes and failure of princes to their intrinsic weaknesses, and directs his writing towards those faults. His works are rooted in how personal attributes tend to affect the decisions one makes and focuses on the singular commanding force of power. Fixating on how the prince needs to draw people’s support, Machiavelli emphasizes the importance of doing what is best for the greater good. He proposed that working toward a selfish goal, instead of striving towards a better state, should warrant punishment. Machiavelli is a practical person and always thought of pragmatic ways to approach situations, applying to his notions regarding politics and

Machiavelli's work was based primarily on achieving power and stability. The citizenry, while important to keep appeased and docile, was not the basis of Machiavelli's perspective. This was not a humanist work; the active engagement of normative, humanist thinking is counterproductive to understanding Machiavelli. In many circumstances, Machiavelli speaks of controlled violence to achieve an end. This discerns that power is not an intrinsic element in itself but an external, conditioned construct that has no true inherent morality. The most pessimistic, however, realistic description of power is simply whomever has the authority to enforce laws--or subservience-- through threat of violence on a specific

Thomas Hobbes and John Locke both share the common vision of the role of a social contract to maintain order in a state. However, their philosophies were cognizant of a sharp contrasting concept of human nature. This essay aims to compare and contrast the social contracts of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke in respect to their definition of natural law. This essay will first analyze the pessimistic Hobbesian approach to the state of nature, the inherit optimistic approach of Locke, and then observe how their definitions directly affect their social contract.

Machiavelli suggests that the only remedy for the inevitable instability within societies is extreme order and consolidated power for efficiency. As previously discussed, this may mean that principles such as justice and fairness may need to take the backseat, but all for the greater good according to Machiavelli. The desire to oppress, he argues is natural

Niccolò Machiavelli was an activist of analyzing power. He believed firmly in his theories and he wanted to persuade everyone else of them as well. To comment on the common relationship that was seen between moral goodness and legitimate authority of those who held power, Machiavelli said that authority and power were essentially coequal.9 He believed that whomever had power obtained the right to command; but goodness does not ensure power. This implied that the only genuine apprehension of the administrative power was the attainment and preservation of powers which indirectly guided the maintenance of the state. That, to him, should have been the objective of all leaders. Machiavelli believed that one should do whatever it took, during the given circumstance, to keep his people in favor of him and to maintain the state. Thus, all leaders should have both a sly fox and ravenous wolf inside of him prepared to release when necessary.10

Machiavelli’s views were drastically different from other humanists at his time. He strongly promoted a secular society and felt morality was not necessary but stood in the way of a successfully governed state. He stated that people generally tended to work for their own best interests and gave little thought to the well being of the state. He distrusted citizens saying, “In time of adversity,

When examining Machiavelli political ideals, it is hard to look at it without saying this is cruel and not ideal in any sense. Machiavelli is a prime example for a strong leader that pursues justice through unification and has shown to be very open-minded. Justice doesn’t just come through cruelty and strength, it also requires intelligence with careful studies. As exhibited in the prior quote, he takes in historical mistakes and success to shape his ideal. To have a culture with justice, Machiavelli pushes that “It is necessary for a prince who wish to maintain his position to learn how not to be good, and to use this knowledge or not to use it accordingly” (224). It is quite evident that Machiavelli is willing to use the full extent of his power without fear. Through his willingness and open-mindedness, he examines both side, good and the bad, for the benefit of his country. He believes only those that can utilize both knowledge is fit for the position of being a prince. When he says knowledge, it goes deep into the studies of history and past experiences. It is shown time and time again throughout his

Niccolò Di Bernardo Dei Machiavelli was one of the first major philosophers to pull away from the religious side of reason. Breaking away from traditional views and values he became a modern thinker by looking at power through naturalistic and realistic senses. Unlike the views of Hobbes, Machiavelli had a contrasting view on the idea of a sovereign. Where Hobbes would explain a ruler to be fair and never unjust towards his people, Machiavelli would suggest a Prince must be ruthless, but not hated. Machiavelli also believed “A prince ought to have no other aim or thought, nor select anything else for his study, than war and its rules and discipline; for this is the sole art that belongs to him who rule.” The art of war was something Machiavelli believed a prince should always have in mind at all times. He believed that it was through war that one

"Machiavelli identifies the interests of the prince with the interests of the state." He felt that it was human nature to be selfish, opportunistic, cynical, dishonest, and gullible, which in essence, can be true. The state of nature was one of conflict; but conflict, Machiavelli reasoned, could be beneficial under the organization of a ruler. Machiavelli did not see all men as equal. He felt that some men were better suited to rule than others. I believe that this is true in almost any government. However, man in general, was corrupt -- always in search of more power. He felt that because of this corruptness, an absolute monarch was necessary to insure stability. Machiavelli outlined what characteristics this absolute ruler should have in The Prince. One example of this can be seen in his writings concerning morality. He saw the Judeo-Christian values as faulty in the state's success. "Such visionary expectations, he held, bring the state to ruin, for we do not live in the world of the "ought," the fanciful utopia, but in the world of "is". The prince's role was not to promote virtue, but to insure security. He reasoned that the Judeo-Christian values would make a ruler week if he actually possessed them, but that they could be useful in dealing with the citizens if the prince seemed to have these qualities. Another example of Machiavelli's ideal characteristics of a prince

He sees no purpose in restraining and controlling oneself for the society because the society will not prosper if the ruler does not. Ruthlessness, maliciousness, and deviousness are all hailed as being acceptable, in fact encouraged, as means of securing position of power. Through his prioritizing, Machiavelli does not seem to be as concerned with the society and the individual as the previous philosophers in history have been. Rather, he sees power as the one and only goal in life, regardless of the individual or the state. Again, though, he is a reflection of his times. The men of the Renaissance era wanted many things--money, power, enjoyment in life--regardless of the moral cost. Others would argue that these superfluities either meant nothing or would not occur without restraining the desires of both ones self and ones state. One needs balance of everything in order to reach the ideals of perfection, but Machiavelli would argue that perfection is not real and so is not worth striving for. Instead, one must live for ones self. He makes the generalization of men that:

Both Hobbes and Rousseau are in agreement that the idea of the state of nature existed before the inception of the political society. However, their view is very different from the concept of the natural state of man. On one hand, Hobbes believes that humans are cruel, malicious and pathetic such that everyone acts in a way that pleases them regardless of whether they pose a risk to others or not (Hobbes & Malcolm, 2012). Hobbes describes men as enemies of each other and that the only thing that pushes them to make peace is the fear of death and necessities that would guarantee them a decent life. It is the passion for self-regard and reputation that necessitates the need to a political institution to govern humans (Hobbes & Malcolm, 2012).