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