Compare And Contrast Machiavelli And Hobbes

Improved Essays
Another difference that I noticed in reading and comparing Machiavelli and Hobbes was seeing how they believe how a ruler or sovereign should act. Machiavelli in his book The Prince explains “It is better to be feared then loved” (Machiavelli 2006). He also shares how as a ruler, you should avoid hatred. Hatred gets one more power than just being loved, but people will not obey you if one is hated by all. So Machiavelli achieves this in a sneaky way. Machiavelli does think that a ruler can be wicked, and worthy of scorn, and as an example he talks about Agathocles. Agathocles seized power through violence. By contrast Hobbes “believes that a ruler can do anything without being unjust to his subjects, since he considers that every man has

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    Thomas Hobbes was an English political philosopher born on April 5, 1588 in Westport, Wiltshire. He received an education at Oxford University in England where he studied classics. In his early life, he traveled to many European countries to meet scientists and study the knowledge of government. Hobbes became interested in government and questioned why people let themselves be ruled. This idea brought on more ideas and soon he started thinking of a new form of government for England.…

    • 178 Words
    • 1 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Locke points out the freedom of the ruled over the rights of the sovereign. Locke favors a legislature government over a monarch. He puts up in mind an administration with the fear of concentrated power. For Locke, the most horrible form of the regime is tyranny, consequently, as much as possible; he puts the power to the hands of the people, where Hobbes prefers the sovereign. The government of Locke obtains its rule directly from the citizens, whereas Hobbes’s monarch rules absolutely.…

    • 1758 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Hobbes states that “in order to live a more contented life… men must give up their freedom to the State” (Document 2). He believed that people were naturally cruel and needed protection from themselves. Hobbes wanted rule by absolute monarchs. He thought it was the only way to keep people in check. His beliefs closely supported how many people thought back then.…

    • 490 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Hobbes describes that Gods righteousness cannot live in the same location as the materialism instilled in the human bodies. However, there is the existence of God as the ruler of his Kingdom which every human being needd to believe and trust. Evidence to prove that God exists can be shown through the numerous servants He has sent to the universe according to Christ. God sent His son proofs the existence of his kingdom although outside the universe. Faith as instilled by His son gives the human bodies the hope that his kingdom and spiritual presence will come into live at the after life.…

    • 218 Words
    • 1 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Bill Watterson-Calvin and Hobbes, Sabbatical, and Commercialization When starting off writing Calvin and Hobbes, Bill was advised not to quit his day job as a large number of comic strips never make it past a few years. The income for a beginner cartoonist wasn’t high paying but neither was his day job so as soon as he was making equal amounts from both jobs he went against the advice of the editor of the syndicate and quit his day job. The editors turned down many of his rough ideas but he chose to go with their decision as he felt if it was good enough to be published he would not have to defend it. As he expounded the characters of both Calvin and Hobbes he began to see himself reflected in them. As quoted in the introduction of The Complete Calvin and Hobbes Book One “Hobbes got all my better qualities (and a few quirks from our cats), and Calvin got my ranting escapist side.…

    • 597 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Starting off, they each had a distinctive understanding of human nature from one another. To Rousseau, humans in primitive times were "noble savages" and it is "civilization" that turned man into a "beast". Conversely, Hobbes believed that being "civilized" is a positive trait and being uncivilized or a "savage" is bad. Concerning human nature, Rousseau theorized that humans were innately good and generous, before being corrupted by the vices of civilization. Human life was most likely peaceful and compassionate as described in his opening line, “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.”…

    • 1051 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Hobbes vs Locke They agree on the state of nature for the state of mankind before goverment. When they have to decide on divine right or the social contract and they both chose social contract. They both agree on alot of things but they disagred on some things too.…

    • 84 Words
    • 1 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Improved Essays

    This is a paper comparing the Aristotle and Hobbes understandings of human nature. Aristotle states that man is a “political animal”, and that it is thus natural for man to live in a polis. Hobbes disagrees with this understanding of man a political animal, as he claims that man is actually a greedy being that is driven by power. Thus he feels that the natural state of man is a state of war. Although the two disagree initially about the man’s natural state, Aristotle comes to agree with Hobbes’ view since they agree that without a common sense of justice that individuals have no reason to live together.…

    • 950 Words
    • 4 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
  • Great Essays

    Both the hypothetical societies Hobbes and Machiavelli created took the use of fear too far to point where it was unjust and used improperly from my perspective. This being said, Hobbes does partially use fear in a justifiable way. Through the use of fear of consequence of violating laws that pertain to the safety of all people of society, Hobbes is able to give to all the people in the “commonwealth” more security and safety which benefits everyone (98-104). Granted, some of the other laws in the “commonwealth” tied to fear of consequence do not serve the benefit of the multitude, making them unjust (Hobbes 98-104). In my opinion, the proper use of fear is only to use it when it can benefit the multitude.…

    • 1785 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Although Machiavelli and Socrates both lived during times of uncertainty, political fragmentation and violence, their philosophies about how the state should conduct itself are in direct contrast with one another. Machiavelli’s the Prince is founded on the principal that if a ruler wishes to maintain power, he should embody the ideology of pragmatism, while Socrates believes the state should follow him in his commitment to moral purity and justice. The inherent dissonance between these philosophies would lead Socrates to be unsupportive of Machiavelli’s concept of a prince, and consequently the political system Machiavelli would recommend he install, despite his apparent change in rhetoric from the Apology to the Crito. Throughout Plato’s interpretation…

    • 1488 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Both theorists believe in natural rights and freedoms and how men establish governments in order to secure peace however they differ on the purpose of government. Hobbes believed the purpose of government is to impose law and order to prevent the state of war. Locke believed the purpose of government is to secure natural rights, namely man’s property and liberty. Both refer to a “state of nature” in which man exists without government, and both speak of risks in this state. However, while both speak of the dangers of a state of nature, Hobbes is more pessimistic, whereas Locke speaks of the potential benefits.…

    • 908 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Machiavelli theory argues that a ruler must do whatever it takes to gain and hold political power, but in the eyes of his subjects have the appearance of being morally…

    • 880 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved 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
  • Great Essays

    Many people specifically philosophers would question, “Why we need a state?” or “What kind of state should we have?” This question opened up all the different views and perspective of the three following philosophers, Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. They all have different but also very similar views on the state of nature, social contract, laws. Hobbes definition of state of nature is a state of war. Morality doesn’t exists and everyone lives in constant fear.…

    • 1796 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Great Essays