Similarities Between Machiavelli And Hobbes

946 Words2 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Compare hobbes and machiavelli

Within the pantheon of Western Political thinkers, two names are routinely and repeatedly referenced, Niccolo Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes. This essay seeks to identify and dissect how the two conceptualize authority and the resultant views on politics. By examining the authors’ abstract approaches within Machiavelli’s The Prince and Hobbes’ Leviathan we can more readily see where they differ and what that means for their politics. To these ends, this paper will focus on two divergences, their respective ethics and authorial perspectives. The two works explore the same larger question, being what is the nature of man, but very early on Machiavelli and Hobbes take differing paths both in focus and propositions to the state of man. In The …show more content…

This additional deviation gives the texts curious symmetry, as Hobbes, through his empirical means, assembled a commonwealth from components of man to man to state whereas Machiavelli worked top-down starting with the workings of the principality and concluding with man being ‘ungrateful, fickle, false, cowardly, covetous, and as long as you succeed they are yours entirely; they will offer you their blood, property, life and children.’ Throughout both texts one can find arguments and ethical structures being provided by both authors. These, not unlike the symmetry of their approach, run parallel in their own fashion. Superficially reading of The Prince one can find a call for violence to seize power however exploring further this is not a suggestion but an invocation. Per Machiavelli that force must be applied unilaterally by the ruler to shore cohesion and prevent division that erodes the state. As he conveys for the authority it ‘is much safer to be feared than loved’ his sole interest is using any and all means necessary to wrangle his citizens and keep power consolidated. Through this lens, the use of violence and force has a better context. The suggestion being, a singular authority corrals the common man who would otherwise only serve his own

Show More
Related

  • Machiavelli vs. Lao-Tzu

    284 Words  | 1 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Nicolo Machiavelli And Thomas Hobbes Concept Of Ideal Government

    1314 Words  | 3 Pages

    An effective leader is one that understands that a society must evolve and revolutionize, in order to meet the needs of the state that are of immediate concern. As a society we are able to build off prior knowledge of once existing methods of living, and adjust them to meet current demands. Both Thomas Hobbes, and Nicolo Machiavelli’s concept, and perception of an ideal sovereign remains present in current forms of government. Machiavelli’s ideas in The Prince indicate that it is simple for any civilian to gain, and maintain power

    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

  • Machiavelli's Prince Vs Hobbes Taxation Case Study

    872 Words  | 2 Pages

    It is worth noting, however, that this is an apparently unattainable reality. This essay has been written with an ideal in mind, with Hobbes’ state fully realised. Given the chance today, in the existing world, between the Prince and the Sovereign, with no promise of that ideal being fulfilled, I would choose Machiavelli’s Prince; the Prince is far more pragmatic, a safer ruler. A benevolent absolute ruler is an unattainable ideal – a pragmatic, cunning ruler with an astute political mind is not. But of course, if it was possible, I would choose the more representative, consented to, and benevolent Hobbesian

    Read More

  • Comparing Machiavelli's The Prince And Leviathan

    638 Words  | 2 Pages

    Niccolo Machiavelli's The Prince and Thomas Hobbes's Leviathan reveals on how to have an absolute government. While Machiavelli focused more on the leader part, Hobbes wrote about the government itself. Although they fixated on different aspects, they shared the common goal of providing security in an insecure world. The Prince by Machiavelli provides an analysis on how to govern and maintain power in a principality.

    Read More

  • The Tao-te Ching by Lao-Tzu and The Prince by Machiavelli

    1754 Words  | 4 Pages

    As he begins to conclude, Machiavelli states that the prince: “should think about avoiding those things which make him hated and despised.” (Mach 48) Although these lack any withstanding moral values, they are effective in the sense that they better serve their purpose. Machiavelli was seeking to display a way to hold political power by any means possible not a utopian state. This may mean malicious acts, imprisonment, and torture, or it may mean the utilization of power to achieve a common good. Machiavelli doesn’t elaborate on this. He concentrates on a realistic approach towards government, as he remains concerned with the establishment and protection of power.

    Read More

  • Analysis Of Machiavelli's The Prince

    764 Words  | 2 Pages

    Much of why Machiavelli wrote The Prince was to advise rulers of hereditary principalities, or principalities gained through birthright. This is something that doesn’t apply to those involved in politics in the modern day, especially those of the United States. Machiavelli states in Chapter II of The Prince regarding Hereditary Principalities that “Hereditary states accustomed to the family of their ruler are more easily kept than new ones, because it is sufficient if the prince does not abandon the methods of his ancestors and proves adaptable when unforeseen events occur.” Although the leaders and politicians of the United States must adapt to many unforeseen events, we elect our leaders unlike the leaders referred to by Machiavelli in The Prince. In Chapter XI of The Prince, Machiavelli discusses Ecclesiastical Principalities, or those ruled by the Catholic Church. This is another thing that doesn’t exist within the United States, although there exists a large emphasis on religion, never has the United States been controlled by the church or the pope. Machiavelli goes on to explain the way in which the church obtained such power and explains the military use under Popes Alexander VI and Julius

    Read More

  • George Bush as a Machiavellian Leader

    1442 Words  | 3 Pages

    The most astounding aspect of The Prince is Machiavelli’s view that princes may indeed, be cruel and dishonest if their ultimate aim is for the good of the state. It is not only acceptable but necessary to lie, to use torture, and to walk over other states and cities. Machiavellianism is defined as “A political doctrine of Machiavelli, which denies the relevance of morality in political affairs and holds that craft and deceit are justified in pursuing and maintaining political power (Def.)” This implies that in the conquest for power, the ends justify the means. This is the basis of Machiavellianism. The priority for the power holder is to keep the security of the state regardless of the morality of the means. He accepts that these things are in and of themselves morally wrong, but he points out that the consequences of failure, the ruin of states and the destruction of cities, can be far worse. Machiavelli strongly emphasizes that princes should not hesitate to use immoral methods to achieve power, if power is necessary for security and survival.

    Read More

  • Comparing Machiavelli and Hobbes

    1482 Words  | 3 Pages

    While both Machiavelli and Hobbes agree that there should be rule by a sovereign, and that this individual will probably make better decisions than individuals, the two disagree on basic assumptions. While Machiavelli believes that the ends justify the means, Hobbes tends to align religion and politics and sees the way in which policies play out as vital for the moral good of society. Machiavelli embraces the idea of a virtuous republican citizen similar to how one might consider a citizen today. To give power and authority to the individual in charge, and trust in what he is doing, is to be virtuous. Hobbes' idea of a subject who properly understands the nature and basis of sovereign political power is more important than the simple, unquestioning support of the leader.

    Read More

  • Hobbes's Theory Of Political Nature And The Theories Of Human Nature

    1286 Words  | 3 Pages

    In sophisticated prose, Hobbes manages to conclude that human beings are all equal in their ability to harm each other, and furthermore that they are all capable of rendering void at will the covenants they had previously made with other human beings. An absolutist government, according to Hobbes, would result in a in a society that is not entirely focused on self-preservation, but rather a society that flourishes under the auspices of peace, unity, and security. Of all the arguably great philosophical discourses, Hobbes in particular provides one of the surest and most secure ways to live under a sovereign that protects the natural liberties of man. The sovereign government is built upon the idea of stability and security, which makes it a very intriguing and unique government indeed. The aforementioned laudation of Hobbes and his assertions only helps to cement his political theories at the forefront of the modern

    Read More

  • The State of Nature: Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury

    1681 Words  | 4 Pages

    In this essay, I will present three reasons as to why the absolute authority of the sovereign in Hobbes’s state of nature and social contract is justified. The three reasons Hobbes uses are: the argument from contract, the argument from authorisation and the argument from weakness of mixed or divided sovereignty. Firstly, I shall explain Hobbes’s understanding of human nature and the natural condition of humanity which causes the emergence of the social contract. I shall then analyse each argument for the absolute authority of the sovereign being justified. I shall then consider possible objections to Hobbes’s argument. I shall then show why Hobbes’s argument is successful and the absolute authority of the sovereign is justified.

    Read More

  • Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau

    2134 Words  | 5 Pages

    The constant state of war is what Hobbes believes to be man’s original state of nature. According to Hobbes, man cannot be trusted in the state of nature. War among men is consequent and nothing can be unjust. Notions of justice and injustice or right and wrong will not hav...

    Read More

  • Erasmus Vs Machiavelli

    876 Words  | 2 Pages

    In The Prince, Machiavelli separates ethics from politics. His approach to politics, as outlined in The Prince, is strictly practical. Machiavelli is less concerned with what is right and just, and instead with what will lead to the fortification of the government and the sustainment of power. Machiavelli believed that a ruler should use any means necessary to obtain and sustain power. He says, “…people judge by outcome. So if a ruler wins wars and holds onto power, the means he has employed will always be judged honorable, and everyone will praise them” (Machiavelli, 55). According to Machiavelli, the ends of an action justify the means (Machiavelli, 55). His motivation for these views in The Prince was the reunification of the Italian city-states (Machiavelli, 78-79). Machiavelli wanted Italy to return to its glory of the Roman Empire (Machiavelli 78-79). Some of the beliefs of Machiavelli could be perceived as evil and cruel, but he found them necessary. Machiavelli was not concerned with making people happy. His purpose was outcome and success, and in his opinion, the only way to be successful was to be realistic. These views of Machiavelli could classify him as one of the earliest modern

    Read More

  • Machiavelli: The Father of Modern Political Science

    1046 Words  | 3 Pages

    The book The Prince was a book of advice to politicians regarding how gain power and keep that power. The title The Prince is not about someone who has inherited land and a decedent to a king. In Machiavelli’s perspective a prince was a man of the citizens....

    Read More

  • Comparing Thomas Hobbes and Niccolo Machiavelli

    2258 Words  | 5 Pages

    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.

    Read More

More about Similarities Between Machiavelli And Hobbes

Open Document