Compare And Contrast Machiavelli And Hobbes

Throughout many centuries, different philosophers have argued contrasting ideas on the nature of justice and on the role of government in society. These philosophers, Plato, Machiavelli, and Hobbes, have differing ideas regarding how a state or society should be governed, who should run the state, what the responsibilities of the leader/people are, and the ultimate purpose of the state. All three philosophers were writing in different eras, so they have they have different philosophies. During Plato's era, man based philosophy on utopian ideals and principles. The primary concern was with how things should be, not how they were. If humans were to all behave this way, it would result in a perfect society. However, Machiavelli was a realist, he was concerned about things now, not how things could be if the world was perfect.

Machiavelli was greatly influenced by his public failures.

Hobbes, on the other hand, was concerned about how humans can live together in peace and avoid the danger and fear of civil conflict. Hobbes presents two choices: we should give our obedience to an unaccountable sovereign or what awaits us is a "state of nature" that closely resembles civil war – a situation of universal insecurity, where human cooperation is almost impossible. All three philosophers provide valid arguments on the role of government, but for Hobbes there shouldn’t be a “state of nature” because there would be anarchy in the streets. Also, Plato’s ideal utopian society seems very unrealistic, no society has been able to follow any ideal model, communism failed when the Soviets tried to accomplish it. Machiavelli’s idea of a prudent ruler is bad too, he states that a prudent leader cannot and must not honor his words. Overall, the ideal role of government is a mix of all three philosophers but with their imperfect ideas

removed.
(Paragraph talking about Plato and his republic)
In his book “The Prince,” Machiavelli believed that the ends justified the means. Machiavelli states that there were two ways a prince could come to power, through skill and fortune. In order for a Prince to be successful, he must possess Virtu. Virtu is strength and wisdom, which are typical qualities for a Prince to rule effectively. Virtu can come in the form of being cunning, manipulative, and violent. Machiavelli believed that in order for a prince to successfully take over and maintain power, these were the traits that the prince must take on. To Machiavelli, only publically should a proper leader be held to the same moral and ethical standard as the rest of society. Machiavelli knows that the world is a competitive place and thinks that the subjects of his letter will epitomize these traits if they yearn for success.
Machiavelli’s unique perspective makes some extremely thought provoking and valid points, nevertheless, Thomas Hobbes would thoroughly disagree with Machiavelli’s logic and people to people interaction. In his book the “Leviathan” Hobbes believes that man is and should be in a constant war against all other men, most importantly for their resources and power. Hobbes believes that a constant state of war is that state of nature. Man’s only way of escape would be through reason, and only through reason can the laws of nature be deduced. Laws of this type would affirm human protection and denounce acts destructive to human life (war, killing, etc.) Peace is only reachable through this first natural law. The second law requires that men respect each other and the order of the natural law. This order is held through contracts or mutual agreements on the terms of natural law and peace. In order to improve peaceful interaction, humans must negotiate and sacrifice individual rights that further enhance society. Hobbes believed that humans are in constant competition to one up each other.
To conclude, all three philosophers provide thought provoking perspectives but all of them have arguments that would best be changed. Plato believed in a utopian society …………………………………………………… Machiavelli was a realist, he was concerned about things now, not how things could be if the world was perfect. Additionally, Hobbes’ Leviathan argued a “state of nature” where anything is legal and that doesn’t sound too pleasing to people who might lose their lives. Overall, all three provide good arguments but need tweaking.