The Influences of Selected Political Writings by Machiavelli and Leviathan by Hobbes

By looking at the readings of Machiavelli, Hobbes, and Locke, there are a few distinctions between how the modern thinkers viewed politics versus the way the ancient thinkers believed politics should be. There are many topics both modern and ancient thinkers discuss in their writings, such as the purpose of politics, the science of politics, human nature, as well as the ideal regime. By doing so, these thinkers’ views on political topics such as these illuminate how they thought politics should work and who should be able to participate in the activity of politics.

Thomas Hobbes and John Locke are comparable in their basic political ideologies about man and their rights in the state of nature before they enter a civil society. Their political ideas are very much similar in that regard. The resemblance between Hobbes and Locke’s philosophies are based on a few characteristics of the state of nature and the state of man. Firstly, in the state of nature both Hobbes and Locke agree that all men are created equal, but their definitions of equality in the state of nature slightly differ. According to Locke, “…in the state of nature… no one has power over another…” Locke’s version or idea of equality in the state of

Hobbes’ Leviathan and Locke’s Second Treatise of Government comprise critical works in the lexicon of political science theory. Both works expound on the origins and purpose of civil society and government. Hobbes’ and Locke’s writings center on the definition of the “state of nature” and the best means by which a society develops a systemic format from this beginning. The authors hold opposing views as to how man fits into the state of nature and the means by which a government should be formed and what type of government constitutes the best. This difference arises from different conceptions about human nature and “the state of nature”, a condition in which the human race

Views on human nature vary amongst people, civilizations and times periods; however, two men drastically changed the way people views humans and the politics that govern these said people. In the past, many people viewed humans as faith filled and diverse creatures: Plato believed the most basic population of the state consists of those whose delusional world hinders their reality; the second level consists of people with solid beliefs, but lack the true knowledge, which is obtained by those who witness and understand the world. While Christians saw people in different lights: there are those who go against God and the state, while there are those who lived faith filled lives, in correspondence to the word of the Bible and the law. The renaissance viewed people as individuals, for humanism began to take over and people focused on the intelligence and talents of each individual person; however, two men of this era diverged from the common thought.

Niccolo Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes, and John Locke have different political philosophies, which describe different forms of government and power. The three philosophers provide insight on what they believe is the best form of government. Machiavelli ’s book, The Prince, is a handbook for rulers and how rulers accomplish effective political leadership.

The concept of political power for both Machiavelli and Hobbes is to establish an absolute ruler. However, Hobbes concept of political power is more systematic than Machiavelli. In Hobbes state of nature life was “solitary, nasty, brutish, and short” and therefore an absolute Leviathan sovereign is needed; where people convey their natural rights to him for the purpose of security of life and society. Leviathan sovereign has all power and can make any decision as long as he protects the lives of his people then he is sovereign. Machiavelli concept of political power is more realistic than idealistic like Hobbes. Although Machiavelli employs the concept of virtue that he thinks a prince should processes in order to be successful a ruler, but

Human nature, society, the organization and ruling of the state, armies and war has always been the discussion by known people such as Aristotle, Thomas Hobbes, and Plato. Machiavelli and Thomas more are also part of the discussion. They both had either the same or different perspective on the matter, although, both writers wrote their books under different circumstances. Machiavelli gave a more idealistic view in his book Utopia. Machiavelli was realistic he used his wisdom to try to guide a prince to have become a great ruler.

Niccolò Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes both have compelling views towards liberty or freedom. In relation to politics, the term liberty and freedom is an essential contested concept. Because we have no complete agreement as to what these terms concrete definitions are, we will always have politics. The two thinkers have provided a framework of what these two terms mean which laid out a platform for what the terms mean today. Machiavelli expressed his views through his works, The Discourses and The Prince, where he wrote down his political beliefs and most importantly, the issue of freedom or liberty. Notably, Machiavelli praises Rome for its perfection and how liberty played a role in helping the greatness of the city in which he believes resulted from people ruling themselves. Hobbes, through his work The Leviathan, defined liberty or freedom as the absence of external impediments (Leviathan, 136). Hobbes had no interest in where these terms historically derived from, rather he sought to define these terms through his own discovery. Furthermore, Machiavelli provided a more complex model on how to protect freedom. I aim to present the views of the two thinkers pertaining to liberty or freedom, and argue how Machiavelli provides a more compelling view in comparison to Hobbes. The terms liberty and freedom will be used interchangeably throughout the paper since there are no concrete distinctions between them.

English philosopher, Thomas Hobbes, was born on April 5th, 1588 in England and died on December 4th, 1679 in England. He was not born into a wealthy or powerful family, in fact, he was the son of vicar who happened to get into a disagreement with a clergyman outside of their church which resulted in him having to flee home. Hobbes is known to be the founding father of political philosophy. “His main concern is the problem of social and political order: how human beings can live together in peace and avoid the danger and fear of civil conflict.” (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy).

The purpose of this essay will be to thoroughly compare and contrast the political philosophies of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. At the surface, these two scholars seem to offer contradictory models of political order, while at the same time relying on similar views of human nature. These men published their most famous offerings, Hobbes’ Leviathan and Locke 's Second Treatises of Government, during an era of developing capitalism and market mechanisms. I will discuss the role of the emerging social and economic principles played in the way each scholar accounted for and show how the social and economic relations of early capitalism clearly defined the political theories of each scholar. I will conclude this essay by showing how each man arrived at his theory of political order despite their many similarities.

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.

People are motivated by self-interests and self-preservation. People are at war with everyone else, people fear for their safety. Every individual has the right to do anything for self-preservation. Any time there is limited resources, there will be a competition on who gets these resources. Two people will meet and compete for these resources, the stronger one will win and the weaker one will die out. Human beings are intelligent, have problem solving skills, we want to get the most with the smallest amount of effort. The desires of one person will conflict with another’s desire, due to the limited resources one will never be sure they can live a well long life. Practically everyone desires to live long and well. Therefore, a person will try to acquire more stuff and more

Niccolo Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes were two modern political theorists who presented new ideas about political organization in the 16th and 17th century. While Machiavelli focused his written works on ideas related to effective governance, Hobbes attempts to explain the necessity of establishing a ruler to maintain peace and stability. Although Niccolo Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes focused on different aspects of political theory, both thinkers addressed the concept of human nature in their written works. Their ideas are reliant on the assumption that all humans have an inherently bad nature. Although the two-political theorists agree that humans are inherently inclined to prioritize their self-interests,

Hobbes writings of political and moral philosophy remain some of the most influential and important reference points in contemporary affairs. One drive in human nature, fear, is a central theme in his works regarding political thought. His thesis works with ideas that order consists of existing harmoniously through avoidance of both danger and the manipulating fear of civil conflict, which can be achieved through our entire faith in single, unaccountable sovereignty of a person or group.

This paper offers an analysis of Niccolo Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes in order to argue that even though their political philosophy is different from ours. It still has significance in a social context and these thinkers’ are very much relevant in today’s society. Both political philosophers’ were writing during a time when there was political turmoil and rising tensions were a consistent occurrence. In the first part of this essay, I will analysis Machiavelli’s political philosophy, such as historical context, the meaning of the text, and provide modern examples in politics to illustrate his point. Then, I will discuss Hobbes’ political philosophy using the same steps of analysis.