Comparison Between Nicolo Machiavelli And Thomas Hobbs

He discusses that the prince have military knowledge, love and fear, trustworthiness, and good and bad reputations. He deeply believes in the art of war. "...a prince must not have any objective nor any thought, nor take up any art, other than the art of war and its ordering and discipline; because it is the only art that pertains to him who commands. And it is of such virtue that not only does it maintain those who were born princes, but many times makes men rise to that rank from private station; and conversely one sees that when princes have thought more of delicacies than of arms, they have lost their state." He also writes about whether it is better to be loved or feared, stating that it is best to be feared, but not hated. Love can change in an instant, and it is better to always have control, even if the prince must be feared. Patriotism and dedication to the state was also a very important aspect. In conclusion, Machiavelli strived for power and strength by any means possible. Through violence and fear, the end result would be worth it to him.

In The Prince, Machiavelli doesn’t hesitate to recommend that a ruler employ conventionally immoral methods against his own subjects to maintain authority over them, but he does imply that whatever a ruler does should ultimately benefit the community. A Prince’s actions may be cruel, manipulative, or otherwise immoral, but they put him in the position to govern. On occasion, Machiavelli even suggests that gaining power through immoral acts is the best way to improve a community because immorality is pragmatic in a way morality is not. A strong ruler established by immoral means can then do good for his state; Machiavelli indicates that simply having power is not enough. A ruler should also use it well. Admittedly, a ruler may only want to do good for his state in an effort to secure his own position at its head, but the effect he has is no less good for the lack of selfless reasoning behind it. Machiavelli implies that a strong ruler who necessarily acquires and keeps power through immoral actions has a generally good effect on his state, which is a naturally moral byproduct of otherwise immoral deeds.

He placed emphasis on how a prince should do anything to maintain and increase their own powers – it was apparent that he felt the individual needs of a prince in terms of the power and authority was important and that a prince should do whatever he felt necessary to protect the state and as a result it would mean a prince’s position as a ruler was also prodected. [Wheeler, 2011] Machiavelli placed a large amount on the emphasis on the fact that a prince must be seen to be a moral - but he is able act un-morally if it contributes to the good of the state or provides him with more power. He must be loved by the people and he must also be feared in order to maintain his role as a ruler of a state. Machiavelli argued that if a prince cannot be both loved and feared - it is better for him to be feared as more people would be scared to question him and afraid of the consequences that may follow. This results in more power and authority for the prince but at the same time it means that the prince is less accountable. This is a benefit for the prince but no for the people living within the state that Machiavelli is suggesting (Macmillian, 2006)

In the Prince, Machiavelli argues that the idea of truth in the government is only a method to manipulate the unsuspecting public. A leader does not need to be truthful as long as the public believes he is. Politics during Machiavelli’s time was much harsher than that of Socrates and his work reflects his cynical history. While Socrates experienced a major change in his home government during his lifetime, Machiavelli witnessed multiple periods of governmental turmoil.

This compare and contrast essay will focus on the views of leadership between Mirandolla and Machiavelli. Mirandolla believes that leadership should not be false and that it should follow the rule of reason. He believes that leaders should strive for the heavens and beyond. On the other hand, Machiavelli believed that leadership comes to those who are crafty and forceful. He believed that leaders do not need to be merciful, humane, faithful or religious; they only need to pretend to have all these qualities. Despite both of them being philosophers, they have drastically different views on leadership, partially because of their views on religion are different. Mirandolla was very religious, and Machiavelli was a pragmatist, which means that

He talks about the importance of war in part because he is writing this in a time of political fragmentation. He says many things about war including that you should rely on your own army not hire mercenaries or militia because they will not have the devotion to your cause like your own people do. Also, that war is important and being a strong military power is paramount to keep power, although he also says its important so seem faithful merciful and sincere he says you do not have to be whatsoever even that it is necessary and okay to act against these things even if it is cruel and violent. He talks about the fact that when you rule you should start out from a position of mistrust because people take advantage of that. He also believes that you sometimes must do evil in order to get what you desire this includes violence which he advocates for but he does think there is such thing as too much violence which is not ideal. One of the most notable points he also makes about a Prince is that he says that it is better to be feared by your people than loved “one ought to be both feared and loved, but as it is difficult for the two to go together, it is much safer to be feared than loved,” (Prince, 60) he goes onto say that he must avoid hatred at all costs even if feared. Machiavelli’s prince must separate statecraft from soul craft which means that your personal feelings may not get in the way of your leadership. His argument though sharply, contrasts Socrates’

Machiavelli considers society an immoral place. According to Machiavelli as stated in The Discourses on Livy, “for as men are, by nature, more prone to evil than to good”. The Prince is a manual for being a successful ruler in an immoral society. Often times that success is met by committing immoral acts. Machiavelli, an outsider to the inner workings of government gives what he thinks are the critical tools to being a successful ruler in modern society. “Sometimes you have to play hardball” is a saying from today that I relate to his philosophies.

People are unlikely to overthrow a ruler that they fear, for they dread the punishments of failure. If the ruler is not feared by the people, he will eventually upset enough of them that they will rise up against him. They will overthrow him because of his perceived weakness, and his name and image will be shamed in the eyes of both his government and his people. Machiavelli believes that the state is completely separate from the ruler’s private life. No matter how immoral or heartless the ruler may be in private, only his public image is important. A ruler can be a terrible, sleazy person on their own time, and when not involved with matters of the state, but at any time when the leader is involved in politics and the state, you cannot afford to injure the image of the ruler or else anarchy will develop. With this kind of rebellion can come revolution, war, and many other tragedies that could be otherwise avoided.

Machiavelli also considered it imperative to conquer other lands to expand a kingdom’s territory and wealth. He studied empires of the past to decipher why they succeeded or failed and decided on three essential rules for governing and holding conquered polities securely. The first was to devastate them, second was to live there in person, and third was to allow them to maintain their own laws. “If the inhabitants are not dispersed and scattered, they will forget neither that name nor those institutions; and at first opportunity they will at once have recourse to them.” (The Prince, 21) He regarded it essential for the Prince to be hands-on with his conquered polity because it was harder for people to go behind his back if he was present all the time. And by allowing them to maintain their own laws it created some sense of friendship between the prince and the people, or at least a sense of mutual respect.

In this essay, I will be discussing the similarities and differences discovered in the writing of Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince and Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan. Primarily, I will begin by explaining each of the authors’ approaches to obtaining and maintaining political stability; I will then identify the differences in their approaches. Secondly, I will discuss and compare each of their ideologies concerning humanity and then I will be highlighting their commonalities on the subject. Lastly, a conclusion will be provided consisting of my opinion.

Throughout history, there have been a variety of leaders. These leaders have varied greatly on their view point of what make a good leader. Some people prefer that one ruler is superior to others, while others tend to believe that all people are on equivalent levels. In addition, some people feel that everyone should have an equal amount of knowledge, while others feel that some people are superior to others. This essay will explore how Socrates and Machiavelli would have compared themselves and their beliefs. Socrates would not have appreciated Machiavelli’s concept of “The Prince”. Socrates also would not have supported a political system that “The Prince” would be willing to go along with.

For thousands of years, philosophers have debated whether we have a basically good nature that is corrupted by society, or a basically bad nature that is kept in check by society. Human beings are highly social creatures. Because of this we are intensely interested in what others are doing, and why. We need to know who is good and bad and therefore who we want to avoid and who we can tolerate. In this essay I will discuss the theme of human nature and compare the thoughts of two influential philosophers, Nicolo Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes. Both Machiavelli and Hobbes express their thoughts and opinions on the topic of human nature in their work.

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:

For the prince, however, the broader goals were unity and stability in the long term. In Machiavelli’s time Italy was at a turning point between fragmentation and unity and he wanted to see the latter option succeed. Power for the prince and that power maintenance is what characterizes Machiavelli’s advice within “The Prince”. And from this advice includes that a prince should do anything and everything within his power to secure his authority for the future.

While there is an aspect that both authors would likely agree on, there is still a steep contrast between their views on how to govern. Machiavelli’s answer for the need of state stability is an emphasis on war and military strength, or “statecraft”. He details that it is important for a ruler to have knowledge on how to properly control a military and use it for his advantage. A prince must also make sure that this is his main focus as a ruler, as this element overpowers any other form of political legitimacy. He recommends that “a Prince ought to have no other aim or thought, nor select anything else for his study, than war and its rules and discipline;” (The Prince, Ch. XIV) . When a prince has control over the military, he not only can eliminate threats from the outside but over his own people as well. If outside states are afraid of the strength of the principle, then the prince no longer has to focus on destabilization from rival principles. Without the worry for those on the outside, the people will also be more pleased with the prince as they believe his is properly doing his job. Socrates would not agree with Machiavelli’s emphasis on war and the use of the military to maintain the state. Socrates’ disapproval can