Comparing Hobbes And Machiavelli's Leviathan

526 Words2 Pages

Now what of the role of the state? The image of Leviathan was very striking and familiar since America already seems to follow the Hobbesian model. Despite the very negative views on humanity presented by Hobbes, I do agree that people need to believe in a higher authority in order to keep themselves in line. Hobbes presented Leviathan in order to accomplish this political feat. Leviathan is made up of all of its citizens and harnesses the power of both the Church and the State. Hobbes believes that the state itself should be the object of worship for the citizens. This can be agreed with to an extent. Obviously, the role I outlined for the Church conflicts with this particular sentiment. However, the element of national unity prescribed in Hobbesian bodies is an element I would like to see continue. Additionally, Machiavelli and Hobbes both state the common good of the State should play an integral role in the political decisions that people make. Machiavelli claims that one should love the state more than their own soul. While this is a bit extreme, loyalty to the state can motivate people to make better decisions for their country, which is something that I would like to see. Currently, I think that most people feel very disenfranchised by their country …show more content…

An increase in political participation is necessary in this country, as the continual low voter participation means that there is a large number of people who feel that their voices are not heard and that they do not matter. And although “having a power to awe them all” is important in maintaining law and order, patriotism and loyalty is necessary to keeping that sort of system in power (Pecknold, 2010). Therefore, the state should focus on making people feel more included in political processes and the citizens should strive to make choices based on the common good of the

Show More
Related

  • Rhetorical Analysis Of Not By Math Alone

    677 Words  | 2 Pages

    On the national civics assessment, “two-thirds of 12th graders scored below ‘proficient’…and only 9 percent could list two ways a democracy benefits from citizen participation” (O’Connor and Romer 4). The information provided clarifies just how little students know about democracy. Without education on the subject, they are unaware as to how their government contribution is beneficial and why it is needed in the first place. The students, because of their lack of understanding, therefore choose to not take part in their government and fail to carry out their duties as a citizen. The authors provide more research that shows “the better people understand our history and system of government, the more likely they are to vote and participate in the civic life” (O’Connor and Romer 8).

    Read More

  • Hobbes’ Leviathan: A Principality? A Republic? Or Something New?

    931 Words  | 2 Pages

    Machiavelli divides all states into principalities and republics, principalities are governed by a solitary figure and republics are ruled by a group of people. With Hobbes’ Leviathan, a new model for governing a territory was introduced that can no longer be equally divided into Machiavelli's two state categories. Hobbes combines the concepts of governing principalities and republics into a new type of political thought that is similar to and different from Machiavelli. Hobbes, unlike Machiavelli, is on the side of the people and not the armed prophets. Hobbes believes that the function of society is not just merely living, but to have a safe and comfortable life.

    Read More

  • Leviathan: With Selected Variants From The Latin Edition of 1668

    959 Words  | 2 Pages

    Although Hobbes is a liberal thinker in some respects his ideas presented in the Leviathan resemble that of a monarchy. Hobbes asserts that the commonwealth can fall under three types of regimes “when the representative is one man, then it is the commonwealth a monarchy... assembly of all... a democracy... assembly of a part only... aristocracy” (L 19.1). However despite this, Hobbes proclaims that monarchic rule is superior since “the private interest is the same with the public” (L19.4). Hobbes posits that people within the state of nature require a Leviathan in order to rein since the state of nature is anarchic. He proposes that by forming a sovereign, the people must trade their innate and natural rights for safety and peace within the state otherwise they would have to submit to a life of “continual fear and danger of [a] violent death...solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short” (L13.9). In his work Leviathan, Hobbes presents a system of government that is more of a principality than a republic in nature. However still the Leviathan does include some republican virtues. The following paragraphs will discuss Hobbes’ Leviathan and its resemblance to both republic and principality and finally conclude that the Leviathan does not differ from either governing style.

    Read More

  • Comparing John Locke and Thomas Hobbes

    1242 Words  | 3 Pages

    Thomas Hobbes and John Locke are two political philosophers who are famous for their theories about the formation of the society and discussing man in his natural state.

    Read More

  • Analysis Of Thomas Hobbes Leviathan

    767 Words  | 2 Pages

    At first reading, Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan can be an intimidating piece of academia. In spite of this, Part 2 of his work, ‘Of Commonwealth’, is still a core piece of political philosophy. Hobbes proposes that the only true functional, permanent and society is one of absolute authority. This essay is focused primarily on the identification and translation of Hobbes’ main doctrines against divided authority, versus the aforementioned unified state. This will be done by looking arguments about the initial construction of the state, the problems of giving each individual the responsibility of power, and benefits of the sovereign as a singular all-powerful figure versus alternatives.

    Read More

  • Plato vs. Machiavelli

    1692 Words  | 4 Pages

    A longstanding debate in human history is what to do with power and what is the best way to rule. Who should have power, how should one rule, and what its purpose should government serve have always been questions at the fore in civilization, and more than once have sparked controversy and conflict. The essential elements of rule have placed the human need for order and structure against the human desire for freedom, and compromising between the two has never been easy. It is a question that is still considered and argued to this day. However, the argument has not rested solely with military powers or politicians, but philosophers as well. Two prominent voices in this debate are Plato and Machiavelli, both of whom had very different ideas of government's role in the lives of its people. For Plato, the essential service of government is to allow its citizens to live in their proper places and to do the things that they are best at. In short, Plato's government reinforces the need for order while giving the illusion of freedom. On the other hand, Machiavelli proposes that government's primary concern is to remain intact, thereby preserving stability for the people who live under it. The feature that both philosophers share is that they attempt to compromise between stability and freedom, and in the process admit that neither can be totally had.

    Read More

  • Analysis Of The Leviathan By Thomas Hobbes

    1147 Words  | 3 Pages

    In the Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes has many different things to say about human nature and what drives men to commit certain actions. All of the actions committed by men and Thomas Hobbes theories revolve around two central ideas, competition and desire. And because of competition and desire, people can never reach true happiness. Man’s own desires and need to be better than the next person will stop true happiness. But in order to understand why Hobbes believes this, his view on human nature has to be looked at first. In Chapter 11 of the Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes places great emphasis on desire. Hobbes says that mankind always does whatever it needs to in order to accomplish its desires. When we accomplish one desire, we simply move on to whatever we want next. The progress that is made in accomplishing one desire and moving on to the next one is what he calls Felicity (Leviathan Ch.11). The reasons that men have desires in the first place are because we have a life style that we love and enjoy. So naturally, humans want to do everything they can in order to keep that lifestyle.

    Read More

  • Hobbes and Locke

    869 Words  | 2 Pages

    Hobbes, on the other hand attested to a role of government akin to monarchy or dictatorship. His definition of the role of the state is a direct inversion of Locke’s. He states society is a creation of the state and therefore the governed surrender their rights so the state can fulfill its main func...

    Read More

  • Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan

    670 Words  | 2 Pages

    Thomas Hobbes begins Leviathan with Book 1: Of Man, in which he builds, layer by layer, a foundation for his eventual argument that the “natural condition” of man, or one without sovereign control, is one of continuous war, violence, death, and fear.

    Read More

  • Comparing Machiavelli and Hobbes

    1482 Words  | 3 Pages

    To be successful, one must have the appearance of virtuousness, but not necessarily be virtuous. At least, this appears to be true according to Niccolo Machiavelli's works. Machiavelli's idea of the virtuous republican citizen may be compared to Hobbes' idea of a person who properly understands the nature and basis of sovereign political power. Hobbes' ideas seem to suggest that most anyone can claim rightful authority as there is a belief in God, and one can under Hobbes, claim legitimate authority rather easily. There are few proofs. Machiavelli, on the other hand, takes a strong position and suggests specific criteria in terms of power. With Machiavelli, there is a sense of righteousness and fairness and while he does not sanction authoritarian rule to save man from himself, it is also true that Machiavelli puts a lot of faith in leaders also. In some respects, one can see that the two theorists agree yet Machiavelli’s proposed Political society is more feasible thus superior to that of Hobbes.

    Read More

  • Civil War In Thomas Hobbes Leviathan

    1805 Words  | 4 Pages

    In The Leviathan Thomas Hobbes argues for the establishment of a society that does not contain the elements of its own demise. Hobbes views civil war as a society’s ultimate demise, and the only way to avoid it is for the citizens initially to submit to an absolute political authority. For Hobbes, civil war is inevitable in every type of government except an absolute government. In order to sustain this absolute government, the citizens not only must submit to the absolute political authority, but they must also not partake in activities that actively undermine the absolute political authority’s power. For these reasons, it is clear that Hobbes believes in political obedience and its ability to influence the peace of a society. Furthermore,

    Read More

  • Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan

    1098 Words  | 3 Pages

    ...verarching constants of the Leviathan are as follow. It must function by way of a single, sovereign power, be it a united general assembly, or an autonomous leader. This power must be exercised with respect to the single covenant. Any concerns that transcend the covenant are to be dealt with by the single sovereign, the ultimate, omnipotent political force. The fundamental constant is one of singularity; all peoples, institutions, and interests must be condensed to their most basic and unified form. In doing so, politics will interconnect the relation between the State and the Sovereign, allowing for mutual benefit, a thought which lends itself to modern liberalism. Hobbes acknowledges that “no discourse whatsoever, can end in absolute knowledge of Fact” (Hobbes, 35), and making the Leviathan an interpretational, and conditional political framework above all else.

    Read More

  • Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan and John Locke's Second Treatise of Government

    3013 Words  | 7 Pages

    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 finds itself prior to uniting into civil society. Hobbes’ Leviathan goes on to propose a system of power that rests with an absolute or omnipotent sovereign, while Locke, in his Treatise, provides for a government responsible to its citizenry with limitations on the ruler’s powers.

    Read More

  • Hobbes' View of Human Nature and his Vision of Government

    446 Words  | 1 Pages

    In The Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes talks about his views of human nature and describes his vision of the ideal government which is best suited to his views.

    Read More

  • Comparing Thomas Hobbes and Niccolo Machiavelli

    2258 Words  | 5 Pages

    ...be loyal subjects, bowing before the state. They should love the state more than their very souls, and serve it to their dying days. In Machiavelli?s model, the people were there to carry out the wishes of the state, and to try not to injure themselves in the process. People are also important to make up the military, which is the ultimate strength of the state.

    Read More

More about Comparing Hobbes And Machiavelli's Leviathan

Open Document