Similarities Between Machiavelli And Hobbes

Born during a period of medieval philosophy, Thomas Hobbes developed a new way of thinking. He perfected his moral and political theories in his controversial book Leviathan, written in 1651. In his introduction, Hobbes describes the state of nature as an organism analogous to a large person (p.42). He advises that people should look into themselves to see the nature of humanity. In his quote, “ The passions that incline men to peace, are fear of death; desire of such things as are necessary to commodious living; and a hope by their industry to obtain them,” Hobbes view of the motivations for moral behavior becomes valid because of his use of examples to support his theories, which in turn, apply to Pojman’s five purposes for morality.

Thomas Hobbes and john Locke were both enlightment philosophers who use the state of nature as a formula in political philosophy. Both Locke and Hobbes had tried to influence by their sociopolitical background, “to expose the man as he was before the advent of the social life” (). Locke and Hobbes addressed man’s relation to the society around him; however, they came to different conclusions regarding the nature of human government.

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,

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

Hobbes emphasizes the concept of human nature. He explains that there are both negative and positive natures. People crave power and wealth by nature; but, if people are free to act on these desires, a state can never acquire the protection necessary for peace. Peace, is a positive nature that encourages social contracts. These contracts will inevitably be breached if a government enables its citizens to act on their negative desires.

Though Hobbes argues that the multitude of individuals must all consent to the sovereign power, Machiavelli believes that consent of all the prince’s subjects isn’t necessary. Machiavelli makes an important distinction between the two classes of the prince’s subjects, the nobility, and the common people. The nobility is always going to conspire against the prince as they wish to seek power. The prince can try to resolve the issue by attempting to satisfy them. But Machiavelli illustrates that a prince can’t satisfy all of the nobility but can satisfy the common people as long as he doesn’t oppress them. If the prince is not hated or despised by the common people, then there is no motivation for them to turn on the prince. The prince needs the consent of the common people not the nobles.

“Perpetual and restlessness of desire [for] power…. that ceases only in death” (Thomas Hobbes). Though Hobbes and Golding share similarities on human nature and government, they differ in some aspects, as well. In the novel, The Lord of the Flies, Golding’s fundamental view on human nature is that people are naturally evil. He believes that people are in constant struggle between good and bad.

The philosopher Thomas Hobbes argued in his book Leviathan, that humans are inherently evil and therefore cannot be trusted to govern. He believed that people are selfish and would act on evil impulses and try and better our position. When left to themselves, he believed, society would fail. Since humans are selfishly motivated, he held the opinion that a successful nation would

Hobbes felt humans can selfishly seek power over the needs of others for their own personal needs and that life is poor, solitary, and short without law and order. Other philosophers disagreed with the Hobbes and felt that humans can be altruistic and look out for the needs of others over their own. Sometimes humans are selfish, but this is not always the case. Hobbes felt that humans were motivated by the fear of death, and they act accordingly. Hobbes felt that humans are motivated to act in a way, which relieves them from discomfort and satisfies their own physical needs. Hobbes states that humans only act in their own self-preservation without regard to others. Therefore, according to Hobbes humans are motivated by greed and protecting themselves from death and unpleasant stimulus other the needs of others. Due to this problem of people not being able to control their instincts, they need to someone to control and guide their instincts so that it benefits all of man. Hobbes believed that people are selfish and this can only be overcome by one ruler with the support of the commonwealth, or in other words the support of the entire population as a

Aristotle and Hobbes present two fundamentally distinct doctrines about the conception of politics, human affairs, and the nature of man. Specifically, both philosophers express vying interpretations of human nature. Even though Aristotle and Hobbes similarly use their understanding of human nature to conceptualize their politics, they both express differing views about the aims for which they believe human beings act and exist. In a rather preliminary interpretation of their views, it can be said that, for Aristotle, man is inherently social, and thereby is naturally inclined towards the community. Whereas, for Hobbes, man is innately individualistic, and is naturally inclined towards self-interest. The distinction between the Aristotelian and the Hobbesian philosophies about human nature rests in their respective explanations of what means and ends drive human action and existence. In the first half of this paper, I will discuss the ways in which Aristotle’s and Hobbes’ conception of human nature differ from one another. In a discussion of equality, I will compare Aristotle’s view of the flexibility of man’s nature, to Hobbes’ view of the intransigence of man in the state of nature, while also comparing Aristotle’s view of collectivity, to Hobbes’ view of individualism. The second half of my paper will argue that Aristotle’s teleological view of human nature presents a more superior and accurate account of human

We will give Hobbes’ view of human nature as he describes it in Chapter 13 of Leviathan. We will then give an argument for placing a clarifying layer above the Hobbesian view in order to

A humanist is defined as one who is concerned with the interests and welfare of humans. Niccolo’ Machiavelli can be thought of as a humanist. Although opinions on this differ greatly depending on whom you speak with. Machiavelli’s life consists of so many examples and lessons that he has learned throughout his life. Through my paper, I intend to examine his perception of morality based on his political writings and life experiences.

Machiavelli has long been required reading for everyone intrested in politics and power. In The Prince Niccolo M

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).