More handpicked essays just for you.
Political philosophy thomas hobbes
Analyzing the prince niccolo machiavelli
Political philosophy thomas hobbes
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
To understand the politics we have, we must look at two philosophers who have shaped the ideas and politics of this world. Niccolò Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes founded a new kind of political science that opposed the classical view of politics. Both of these men believed classical philosophy and Christianity focused on reaching imagined republics; these imagines republics were unreachable. Under these imagined republics men were held to high standards, men had to be virtuous; and men could not keep all the virtues because they lived in a world where men were not all good. Machiavelli’s book The Prince redefines virtue in order to allow rulers to keep their power; he lowered the standards of politics with this action. While Machiavelli’s writings meant to influence rulers, Hobbes’ book the Leviathan focused on appealing to the people. Hobbes placed political philosophy on a scientific basis; as a result human life was reduced to only self-preservation and commodious living. This essay will examine the innovations Machiavelli and Hobbes created especially with their views on virtue, necessity, and liberty. Machiavelli redefined the term virtue from the classical understanding. He did this by incorporating vice into virtue. Machiavelli new understanding of virtue is required and by rulers and soldiers in order to maintain power. The Prince determined that men were not all good. He believed that the classical understanding of virtue could only be applied or used by men in what Machiavelli called imagined republics or kingdoms. Because men were not all virtuous and did not keep their promises, Machiavelli believed the ruler should not be all virtuous or always keep his promises. The necessity to maintain power drives a ruler to step... ... middle of paper ... ...nion could only be applied during his time and therefore could no longer be applied; Aristotle’s opinion was inaccurate. Berns argued that “[v]irtue, if it means anything more that a man’s power, is the habit of doing what tends to our self-preservation, and to its fundamental condition, peace; vice is the contrary,” and thus like Machiavelli, Hobbes redefine virtue. To conclude one can determine that both Machiavelli and Hobbes have influenced politics. Machiavelli lowered the standards for politics and initiated the movement to create a separation of church and state in order to restore the political. The adoption of church and state preserves politics. Hobbes created a new science that emphasized the preservation of the self. Everything derived from one’s ability to have self-preservation, and thus a focus on individual rights rather than the common good.
Machiavelli believes that a government should be very structured, controlled, and powerful. He makes it known that the only priorities of a prince are war, the institutions, and discipline. His writings describes how it is more important for a prince to be practical than moral. This is shown where he writes, "in order to maintain the state he is often obliged to act against his promise, against charity, against humanity, and against religion" (47). In addition, Machiavelli argues that a prince may have to be cunning and deceitful in order to maintain political power. He takes the stance that it is better for the prince to be feared than loved. His view of how a government should run and his unethical conduct are both early signs of dictatorship.
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.
Machiavelli disagrees with the classical definition of virtue. He makes a distinction between what he calls ‘virtu’ and ordinary goodness; a separation between private and public morality. Virtue literarily means manliness, and he equates it to skillful self-advancement. Virtue implies physical and mental capacity-intelligence, skill, courage, vigor; everything that is necessary for attainment of one’s own ends. Additionally, virtue is the ability to be flexible and adjust in any given situation. Pizan, on the other hand, attributes loyalty, prudence, intellect, imagination, moral strength and insight to virtue. Although their definitions of virtue are not necessarily the same, the historical, mythical, and biblical examples Pizan and Machiavelli utilize are aimed at proving the same point, that glory is the goal of acting virtuously.
Although Hobbes and Locke agree that all people are equal, they perceive natural rights and human nature in very different ways. Hobbes believed that people innately love liberty and dominion over others and that men fight due to three “principal causes”: “competition,” which results in men invading for “gain;” “insecurity,” which makes men invade for “safety;” and “glory,” which makes men invade for “reputation.” He states that men are natural...
Thomas More, Niccolo Machiavelli, and Thomas Hobbes offer models for the relationship between the sovereign and the people in their works Utopia, The Discourses, and The Leviathan. Each argues that ensuring the common good of the people should be the primary goal of the sovereign. However, they differ in the specifics of their descriptions of this relationship and in their explanations of the sovereign’s motivation for valuing the prosperity of the people. An examination of the specified passages in each of these works will clarify the comparison of their models for this relationship.
Machiavelli believed that, ethics and morality were considered in other categories than those generally known. He does not deny the existence of, but did not see how they can be useful in its traditional sense as in politics and in the government of the people. According to Machiavelli, a man is by nature a political angry and fearful. Machiavelli had no high opinion of the people. It is assumed that a person is forced to be good and can get into the number of positive features, such as prudence and courage. The prince can only proceed gently and with love, because that would undermine the naivety of his rule, and hence and the well-being of the state. He thought that, the Lord must act morally as far as possible, immorally to the extent to
Clearly, though both Thomas Hobbes and John Locke share similar social contracts, with regards to representation and the role of the government, their views are radically different, stemming from their sharply contrasting views on the State of Nature. Although they had radically opposing viewpoints when it came to the role of government, both Hobbes’ Leviathan and Locke’s Two Treatise of Government were instrumental references in the forming the American government and political spectrum. Predictably, Hobbes’ extremely cynical-in-a-PTSD views on the State of Nature (and thus government) were less regarded, in favor of Locke’s more moderate views on government and towards humanity in general.
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.
Machiavelli, along with the fifteenth and sixteenth century humanists of Italy, held new attitudes of freedom and reconstructed the classical image of virtue within human affairs. The author theorizes a utilitarian virtue, his virtú, to better-fit a ‘successful Prince’. Throughout the document, virtú is found to describe a ruler’s actions and skills of good leadership, rather than a leader’s central morals, for the interest of the state and ruler. Reinventing moral virtue, the author advises on the importance of having the ability for actions both wicked and immoral, as to be moral can be in some circumstances irrational, whilst still appearing to uphold central morals. Christians referred to the author’s new ethics as wicked positions and forgetful of the Day of Judgment, they objected to the author’s notions of deceit. Machiavelli did not respond to the churches objections, “his silence is eloquent”, therefore echoing the significance of the author and document. In Chapter 16, Christian assumptions are dismissed with the author proposing half of the actions one makes are genuinely under the individual’s control. The author instigates taking some control away from the Church and returns a sense of control to those reviving classical values. The document is significant and revolutionary, overturning Christian humanism and classical
To Machiavelli, Virtue is basically one’s ability to bring chaos under his control. Virtue is the skillfulness that leads up to how well one can run his kingdom. It is the way that one uses virtues such as honesty and generosity to rule his kingdom and how he plans to maintain the power as a prince.
Studying the nature of politics involves the analysis of a plethora of various individual components that altogether shape the overall political theories of the great political philosophers throughout history. Politics is the pursuit of achieving a strong, just, and successful system of governance, which encompasses the distribution of power and economic structure. The progression and evolution of political theory is made evident through the study of great minds such as Aristotle, Machiavelli, Locke, and even more recent entities like those of the founding fathers of the United States. As civilization and societies have advanced, the political systems that govern those civilizations have also adapted to meet the necessities of the time. Despite the large span of time between the eras of these philosophers, there are certain aspects of their works and theories have been timeless and are common amongst them. All have analyzed innate human behavior and its effects of political systems. Themes of human nature, justice and virtue, freedom, and the roles and rights of citizens have been common components to name a few. More narrowly however, words like liberty, or freedom, virtue, and selfishness have had resounding significance in all of these philosophers’ works. These terms are rather vague out of context and thus require a more in depth investigation to understand their significance in political theory.
Hobbes expressed a clear personal confidence in his position as the 'author or originator of an authentic political science'. It was in De Cive, published in 1647, that he made a preliminary and tentative claim to have discovered a way of 'rationalising enquiry into political behaviour,; and that he had also created a 'new science' — a science of politics [3]. Hobbes began his study of civil government by investigating its central subject, the human being as a natural and social animal, and then proceeded to define its origin...
Machiavelli states in his book, The Prince, that to be a good prince, one must appear to be good to his people, when in reality, he is not. This is to help deal with the idea that a prince may not possess every trait admirable in a king. Machiavelli uses the statement, “no ruler can possess or fully practice” all the characteristics the people would like to see in their prince, and it is for this reason “a prince must be prudent that he escapes ill repute for such vices as might take his position away from him.” These vices Machiavelli refers to are characteristics such as mercy and the inability to appear moral.
Two of the greatest philosophers of all time are Thomas Hobbes and Niccolo Machiavelli. Hobbes was born in 1588 in England, when absolutism was taking hold in Europe. His most famous work was 'Leviathan', written in 1651. Hobbes discussed the ideal state and innate laws of man and nature, among other things. Machiavelli was born in Italy in 1469, a time when his home country was ruled mostly by foreign powers. His hometown, Florence, was still independent. Machiavelli's most famous work, 'The Prince', tells of his ideal state and ideal ruler. Machiavelli goes on to describe the perfect prince, a picture of cruelty and cunning. Though both genius philosophers, their views differ greatly. Hobbes believed in a minimalist government where the state only interfered with the lives of the citizens when it had to. The ideal kingdom was the kingdom of God, in Hobbes' mind. In Machiavelli's 'The Prince', he describes his ideal government with a strong monarch, and fearful subjects. In Hobbes' system, a close relationship was kept with God, while in Machiavelli's reason was the only rule. The most important and most dealt-with area of dialogue is the 'ideal' government.
Machiavelli showed the weakness in human nature. Humans were born ungrateful, fickle and eager to avoid danger. The princes should disregard the reproach of cruelty to keep his subjects loyalty and faithful to him, rather than abusing his mercy. “For men will sooner forget the death of their father than the loss of their patrimony”(20). While people were conferred with benefits, they are willing to sacrifice for others, but people would betray others when truly needed. The so-called homage and faithfulness were merely the protection of self-interest and cover of avarice inward.