Machiavelli and Hobbes

The revolution generated radical changes in the principles, opinions, and sentiments of the global people. New ideas and issues affected political ideas. In addition a new government was also changed. A few of the many enlightenment thinkers were Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, baron Do Montesquieu, and Jean Jacques Rousseau.

With these natural causes of quarrel, Hobbes concludes that the natural condition of humans is a state of perpetual war of all against all, where no morality exists, and everyone lives in constant fear (p.45). He believes that humans have three motivations for ending this state of war: the fear of death, the desire to have an adequate living and the hope to attain this through one’s labor (p.47). These beliefs become valid because of the use of his examples. One example suggests that people are barbaric to each other. With the absence of international law, strong countries prey on the weakness of weak countries. I believe that his views of moral behavior are very true. Like Hobbes said, people are out for their well-being. If I were to do a favor for someone, I may think I am helping someone out, which I am, but I am probably doing the favor because it is going to make me feel better. It is going to benefit my well being. Hobbes is a famous philosopher whose views were very controversial. But the fact that he lived in a time when the monarchy was the “divine right of kings” (p.42), makes his views valid today. With a different government and new laws, his views appear to be true.

The story “lord of the flies’’ by William Golding, the novel correlates to the philosophical views of John Locke and Thomas Hobbes. John Locke was an English philosopher that surmised man's natural moral compass would point towards good, Locke's philosophical writings stated “ that individuals in a state of nature would have stronger moral limits on their actions. Essentially, Locke thought that our human nature was characterized by reason and tolerance. People, Locke believed, were basically good’’ ( Locke and Hobbes Overview 2). John Locke thought if people were given no rules they would make a paradise, flourishing in law, order, and structure, Thomas Hobbes believed people were naturally cruel and chaotic, with a need of a strong ruler to make decisions. Hobbes stated, “Who felt that mankind was inherently evil and required a strong central authority to ward off this inclination toward an immoral behavior, Locke believed that human nature allowed men to be selfish’’( Locke and Hobbes Overview 2 ). Thomas Hobbes believed a strong iron-fisted ruler was needed for the safety and well being of a society. The ideals of man in a natural state, follow Thomas Hobbes philosophical view represented through Jack's brutish and monarch like attitude which lead to them living in a dystopian society.

Machiavelli stated that " any prince, trusting only in their works and having no other preparations made, will fall to ruin" (Document 1). This shows that people believed that when a king only was ruling, and he is not listening to his people he is much more likely to fail because his ideas will not be fully supported by those he is trying to push his ideas upon. Thomas Hobbes stated in 1651 that " as far forth as for peace and defense of himself he shall think it necessary, to lay down this right to all things;" (Document 4) showing that if the people do not feel represented in their government they should put all their effort into having their voice heard and represented. People do not want a tyrannical leader who runs around doing whatever is best for himself, they want a leader who hears their voice, and implements policies benefiting his people according to what he has been told. This is exactly the opposite of the the leaders were doing, they were not listening or acting on what their people wanted the rulers were only doing what was best for them, and would make them the most money, truly

Machiavelli, an Italian philosopher and Prince, says “Men have less hesitation in offending a man who is loved than one who is feared, for love is held by a bond of obligation which, as men wicked, is broken whenever personal advantage suggests it, but fear is accompanied by the dread of punishment, which never relaxes.” (Doc 1) He uses this point to try and emphasize how having more power makes you more feared, making others respect you more since they are afraid of punishment. This shows tyranny because he would rather use his power to scare people into listening to his directions to keep his power than show love and compassion and earn the people’s trust. Hobbes, on the other hand, is a citizen in England that supports absolutism because he feels that an absolute ruler would have helped avoid the English Civil War.

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,

"But my hope is to write a book that will be useful . . . and so I thought it sensible to go straight to a discussion of how things are in real life and not waste time with a discussion of an imaginary world; for the gap between how people actually behave and how they ought to behave is so great that anyone who ignores everyday reality in order to live up to an ideal will soon discover he has been taught how to destroy himself, not preserve himself."

Hobbes and Machiavelli were both advocates of self-preservation in their philosophies, although Hobbes placed higher priority on the idea of self-preservation more so than Machiavelli. Their views on glory, courage, and honor differ greatly from each other and as a result affect the level of emphasis they place on the value of self-preservation. Hobbes believed that self-preservation was the reason for entering a social contract and that fear of a violent death was the driving force behind leaving the state of nature. Machiavelli argues that the point of Government is for self-preservation.

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

The works of Socrates and Machiavelli are as polarized as the phrases “the unexamined life is not worth living” and “the ends justify the means.” The Prince by Machiavelli and The Last Days of Socrates by Plato are both crucial texts to the discussion of what makes a good political leader. Well, what makes a good political leader? Socrates would disagree with Machiavelli’s ideation of the Prince because of the immorality that he allows this model to have in the public sphere. However, Socrates would find that Machiavelli’s Prince would lead to a political system that he would favor, because it would be one ruled by a qualified and expert leader, unlike in a democracy.

In the 18th century, a fierce debate broke out among many philosophers about the nature of the human psyche. Many argued whether humans in a state of nature were constantly at war with one another or whether these same humans were peaceful in their natural setting. From this debate, many other important philosophical arguments arose over the state of human nature. One of the most important arguments was the discussion of equality between human beings. Many authors believed that natural inequalities existed between human being. While others debated that human inequality was either negligible or completely non-existent. Within this debate, two thinkers, Thomas Hobbes and Adam Smith, came down with complex arguments on the equality of human beings. This essay will begin by walking through the argument of each influential thinkers. After establishing the argument of each writer the essay will then make the argument that Thomas Hobbes has a greater commitment to the idea of natural equality based off his that even though natural differences exist these are so negligible that their existence is unimportant.

One of the main premises of Leviathan and The Prince is morality. Where morality comes from, how it affects people under a political structure and how human nature contributes or doesn’t to morality. Hobbes and Machiavelli differ widely on each subject. Machiavelli’s views on morality, based upon a literal interpretation of the satire The Prince, is very much a practical and realistic approach to the nature of morality and human nature. Hobbes’ views, based in Leviathan, are of a more idealistic nature, and my views are a little in between the two.

Thomas Hobbes and Niccolò Machiavelli are known to be philosophers whom have helped to develop the views of political power and human nature. Both men had very different views from one another, yet at the same time they did indeed have many similarities. From having opposite views on Political Power, to having alike views on Human Nature, Hobbes and Machiavelli are men whom have shaped political philosophy throughout our time. Through the works of Machiavelli’s, The Prince and Hobbes’ Leviathan their views are clearly portrayed and explained with great depth. These works have helped change the way we see our modern day society.

"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

The reason Machiavelli was so concerned about a good reputation was because absolute power only comes once the people have given up their rights. Thomas Hobbes concluded that to keep peace, “Men must renounce their right to use whatever they consider necessary for self-preservation, on the condition that other men agree to do likewise” (qtd. In Smith ch.11). This submission sets the government up so that the sovereign is left with “complete discretion in deciding what to do” (qtd. In Smith ch.11). Once power is achieved and sovereignty remains only in the hands of the authority, focus must shift to the principles of leadership.