Essay On Machiavelli's Leviathan

Great Essays
ESSAY II
Leviathan was a book written by Thomas Hobbes and it was published in 1651. It is an interesting read that intertwines systems of governance, psychology, ethics, philosophy, theology and other fields of study. Hobbes wrote Leviathan with the intention to correct the outcome in the political spheres of London and France that were shaken up by civil wars at the time (1642 – 1651). Hobbes wrote Leviathan with every principle as a foundation of understanding for the next. His arguments are intertwined closely to build a greater understanding of his final assertions. In writing Leviathan, Hobbes was seeking a deeper understanding of human nature which eventually develops the theory of the social contract and the Sovereign.
Like Hobbes, Niccolo Machiavelli is also recognized as one of the greatest political theorists and founders of modern thought. Machiavelli wrote The Prince which was published in 1951. Machiavelli and Hobbes are alike and yet very different at the same time. Throughout this essay, The Prince and Leviathan will be used to reflect the positions of Machiavelli and Hobbes and subsequently, to create a broader understanding of their similarities and differences. The “state of meer nature,” is synonymous with the state of war because there aren’t enough of the good things to go around so people compete for these good things. Not to mention the fact that people also want to seek glory (desire to be better than the next person). Hobbes put it best when he called it a “war of each against all”. To evoke fear about the state of nature, Hobbes describes the English civil wars that were going on at the time. He also defines life in the state of nature as "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." Given the degree of terror expected in the state of nature, the state evolves into the state of the sovereign and people enter the social contract. In a sense, fear is glorified because it transforms the state of nature into a state of the sovereign and persists under the Government. Machiavelli, like Hobbes, believes that people are selfish and always looking for ways to further their interests. He describes them as “ungrateful, fickle, dissembling, anxious to flee danger, and desirous of gain.” Machiavelli also agrees with Hobbes that a political system should be founded on fear - a stable system of coercion. A prince would rather be feared than loved because people are unreliable and they will break the bond of love the minute it doesn’t serve their advantage. Anyhow, people abide by the social contract to ensure self-preservation. The Sovereign is not created for selfish concerns, but for the common good - a cooperative society where people can achieve maximum utility. In this sovereign society, the people have a political obligation to the social contract. It is in their best interest to abide by the social contract in order to remain avoid civil wars and live in unison. An interesting observation is that while Hobbes is averse to war/crime, Machiavelli sees it as an opportunity to gain power and subsume others. Machiavelli is an opportunist. Machiavelli gives the example of the Roman Republics who were powerful in the political sphere. In Machiavelli’s words, “the division between the plebeians and the Roman Senate that made the Republic rich and powerful’. Given that laws are highly correlated to justice/injustice, it is important to understand Hobbes on laws of nature.
…show more content…
There are two laws of nature; to seek peace and to enter a social contract. On those grounds, it is safe to say that there is no justice/injustice. For the reason that “where no Covenant hath preceded, there hath no Right been transferred, and every man has Right to everything; and consequently, no action can be Unjust.” To put it plainly, Right is synonymous with liberty and law is synonymous with obedience. That means that law and justice are purely conventional/ established so the people come to create their own understanding of justice or injustice. Hobbes considers an objection to his argument which he ascribes to the “fool who hath said in his heart there is no such thing as justice.” The fool is obviously Machiavelli. Hobbes’ argues that without respect for property/rights, everyone has a claim on everything for as long as one can keep it and that is

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    Niccolo Machiavelli’s book The Prince is a guide on how a proper prince should rule his nation. Machiavelli demonstrates how the past rulers have either been successful or not. Even as his audience were that of monarchs, many of his teachings’ outcomes can be seen in present day. In chapter 12, Machiavelli comments on the usage of mercenary troops.…

    • 311 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Thomas Hobbes wrote this document. He is a British figure that had a large impact on political philosophy. He believed in absolutism was the most optimal form of government. Leviathan-his main piece of work- is a social theory that impacted society for many years.…

    • 2032 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Machiavelli in The Prince is primarily a practical observer and diplomat analyst prescribing numerous ethical and political instructions to Cesar Borgia for pyramidical maintenance, sustenance and enhancement of political power at various stages of capturing, nurturing, preserving and augmenting power and absolute power for the prince. Hobbes’s aim in his Leviathan is similar to that of Machiavelli’s The Prince. Both are equally concerned for bringing about order out of chaotic civil war like situation in England and arbitrary ruler in Italy respectively. Hobbes is making an all-out effort to create an edifice and basis of scientific foundation for the need of a sovereign power through his so called scientific materialism. That is why he discusses at length human nature, psyche and need for sociological order in society.…

    • 879 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Leah Schulz Professor Jennifer Hanson History 2- 81010 September 07, 2017 Hobbes vs. Locke Both, Hobbes and Locke, were known as social contract theorists as well as natural law theorists. Hobbes is well known for writing Leviathan and Locke is well known for writing Treatises on Government. However, they are different in regards to their stand and conclusions in several laws of nature. Thomas Hobbes was an English philosopher from Malmesbury. He first started rising to fame when his book Leviathan, laid the foundation of Western political philosophy.…

    • 992 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    In Leviathan, Hobbes makes a few key assumptions about human behavior in the natural world – namely that all men are equal, desire for what is best for oneself, and have the right to do all things in the preservation and improvement of life – in the “the state of nature”. Upon this, he builds his subtractive…

    • 1623 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The views of Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan are exemplified in his views that obedience is key to human salvation, and that war and violence are merely the cause of the nature of man. The contrasting views on freedom show the difference in philosophy, and the contrasting views of violence and nonviolence show the difference in how to achieve such…

    • 1218 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Charles Mills took advantage of the times in Leviathan where Thomas Hobbes contradicted himself in order to tarnish Hobbes’…

    • 1406 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    In his book Leviathan, in 1660, Hobbes wrote about politics and the natural law. Hobbes believed that men have three causes to fight: “First, competition; secondly, diffidence; thirdly, glory”. This led him…

    • 1315 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Hobbes Vs. Rousseau

    • 1582 Words
    • 7 Pages

    In this paper, I will be analyzing and explaining the way that Hobbes and Rousseau’s ideas regarding the national condition of human beings differ. In my exegesis, I will be discussing how in Leviathan (ch. 13), Hobbes takes a stance regarding egoism, the idea that man always acts in their own interest. I will also be discussing the fact that Rousseau is fundamentally opposed to the ideas in which Hobbes presents. Rousseau believes that society taints the fundamental core beliefs of mankind. I will then present the critical point of this paper: the fact that the two philosophers have very conflicting viewpoints on the concept of human nature.…

    • 1582 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Intro After reading The Leviathan by Hobbes and the Machiavelli’s The Prince and the Discourses I would argue that the two authors have a similar view on how fear is politically relevant. What makes fear relevant to Machiavelli and Hobbes is that they believe that fear is necessary for a sovereign or a prince to stay in power. The two authors also believe that it is needed to keep the subjects in check and to keep them complacent. Today however there are people who question if fear is politically relevant today.…

    • 1077 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Niccolo Machiavelli and The Prince Introduction Niccolo Machiavelli is a famous statesman, thinker and one of the founders of modern political science. He was born in the year 1469 at Florence. That is the age of political chaos. The whole country was separated to city governments。In this case, he wrote his masterpiece, The Price, which to be as much praised as blamed. Machiavelli used terse and forceful words elaborate his argument, which had a profound influence in history.…

    • 1199 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    ‘For Hobbes, the purpose of politics is to escape war. As such, he insists that in order to establish a democratic political order, all individuals need to hand over their will to a single point of ultimate authority’ (Field, 2015). Due to their beliefs on human nature, Hobbes and Machiavelli shared comparable principles with regards to the need of a sovereign ruler, and the requirement for a functioning supreme power in order to control the people. In the enlightenment period in which Hobbes wrote in his book the Leviathan about the human nature of people, he, similarly to Machiavelli, described that they were selfish and war-prone. Hobbes believed that people are not born with the understanding of what was right…

    • 1550 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Great Essays

    In this essay I will be discussing the similarities and differences discovered in the writing of Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince and Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan. Primarily, I will begin by explaining each of the authors approaches to obtaining and maintaining political stability; I will then identify the differences in their approaches. Secondly, I will discuss and compare each of their ideologies concerning humanity and then I will be highlighting their commonalities on the subject. Lastly, a conclusion will be provided consisting of my opinion.…

    • 1601 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Life in the State of Nature was describes by Hobbes as being ‘solitary’, ‘poor’, ‘nasty’, ‘brutish’, and ‘short’. Hobbes also believed humans have a natural desire for security and order. And in order to secure self-protection and to avoid misery and pain, societies began entering into contracts. These ideas of self-defense are inherent to human nature and in order to achieve this people would voluntarily surrender their rights and freedoms to a Leviathan via contract who would command obedience. This led…

    • 1704 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Thomas Hobbes and Niccolo Machiavelli, both grappling with regional instability and constant war, arrive at different frameworks for handling man’s inherent propensity for conflict from very similar models of human behavior. Hobbes, watching his fellow countrymen fight each other during the English Civil War, decided that humans perpetually desire more power to secure their well-being and therefore incline toward warfare as a means to achieve this. Machiavelli, similarly accustomed to the restless Italian Peninsula, also labeled man as power-hungry and self-centered, always striving for enough freedom to ensure one’s prosperity. In the absence of the structure and organization provided by a government, a situation dubbed mankind’s ‘natural…

    • 1255 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays