Compare Machiavelli And Thomas Hobbes

Superior Essays
Niccolo Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes are important political philosophers of their time. The philosophers share similar negative views on the human nature. These negative views of human nature are reflected in their views of government, politics, and the treatment of citizens. Niccolo Machiavelli was from the 1400 era. He was considered the Father of Political Science. He was born in the city-state of Florence. Machiavelli got is some trouble with the rulers of Florence, The Medici, and was barred from entering the city. As a result of this, he wrote “The Prince” to try to get back into Florence. The Prince presents Machiavelli’s a view of a governing state that in which one Prince is the sole authority. The Prince would determine every aspect …show more content…
He was an atheist and supporter of science. His views of nature are similar with those of Machiavelli. He believed that there was a Law of Self-Interest, in which people were evil and acted in their perceived self-interest. In the State of Nature, people would deny things from their own family in their self-interest. Without states, laws, and orders, life is solitary, poor, nasty, and brutish. He did not believe that people could do good deeds for no rewards, although he believed people had it in them to try to be good. I think that this is a harsh view. Hobbes reasoned that human behavior functioned according to laws. He believed in a social compact, where people would voluntarily create the government to rule them. He presented the solution of a sovereign government that makes, enforces, the laws of his social compact, in which citizens give certain rights in exchange for preservation. The sovereign himself, however, is above the law. This is similar to Machiavelli’s view on The Prince. The Sovereign is the personification of the state. Hobbes believes that the sovereign can’t be too strict or too lenient, but has the power to ban and censor anything, distribute property as they see fit, and declare wars in they want to. Hobbes believes that fear is the best way to rule, that people must be controlled through the sword. This differs from Machiavelli’s beliefs on ruling. Machiavelli believed The Prince should not be just feared, but also loved. However, Machiavelli admits that fear works best for law and order, which is the case here. Hobbes says that a truly free person is one who goes along with the sovereign. However, Hobbes believed that all subjects of a government had the right to overthrow a government that no longer supported them. Hobbes wrote his “Laws of Nature”, which were his recommendations for guidelines for society. The “laws” are as follows; always seek peaceful solutions, lay down

Related Documents

  • 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 for instance, believing that the state of nature is enviably a state of war explains that society needs a strong government to maintain order, ensuring that people do not lapse into war. This is why he argues for an absolute monarch. Hobbes view is that everyone is born with rights that they relinquish to the monarch in return for safety and protection. This is called the social contract. When people do this, they are essentially giving up their freedom and liberty, surrendering all control to the monarch.…

    • 981 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    It is human nature to naturally be evil and we must have government to maintain and regulate society, in order to prevent citizens from trumping others rights. Ideologies is a “prescription for society based on personal values.” A truly objective political ideology is almost impossible, but if it can be sensitive to the individual and best promotes their cooperation towards mutual ends. Ronald Reagan was a modern conservative who proposed many changes to how he thought…

    • 1738 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Machiavelli speaks to this conflict of virtuous behavior versus deception when he says, “If a prince wants to maintain his rule he must be prepared not to be virtuous” (50). Without morals, the only guiding force that remains is a conscious action motivated by one’s own rational thought. Once one gives up his morals, he rids himself of the pressure that is associated with being a virtuous person. However, Machiavelli does not entirely preach the notion that – in order to be a successful leader – one must abandon all forms of virtuous behavior. If morality is defined as a demarcation between good and evil, then there must be something to say about the importance of valuing the goodness of one’s nation over its destruction.…

    • 1948 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    To Paine, society is everything good that the people can accomplish by joining together. Paine makes it clear that he is not particularly fond of government, whose only purpose is "restraining our vices". One theme throughout this work is Paine’s view of government as a necessary evil. Paine says that government has its origins in the evil of man, and that its sole purpose is to protect life, liberty and property, and that a government should be judged on the extent to which it accomplishes this goal. His reasoning for this is that he feels the “natural state” of man is to live without government, so there should only be government to alleviate the problems of man.…

    • 1328 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    One one hand, Hobbes discussed the necessity for a structure of government where an ultimate power would counteract the intrinsic selfishness of humans. Whereas, Montesquieu championed the idea of civic virtue arising from a society dedicated to liberty. Regardless of the specific nature of corruption, political corruption is a tiered concept because it does not end at the individual. Therefore, it is critical that the compounding effect of corruption should be curbed as as soon as possible. Wallis observed that “once independent, Americans worried continuously about their governments and how to design their political institutions to limit corruption” (Wallis 24).…

    • 1420 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Machiavelli’s advice is there for the people who hold power and exposes the truth in human nature. However, although Machiavelli opens up the honesty of humanity; he teaches that there are a lot of people who are not good, so one must also learn to not be good. The thing that is wrong with this is that evil does not combat with evil. Evil can not conquer evil, good conquers. Therefore, The Prince explores the reality of human nature as self-interested and wicked.…

    • 1044 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    To an understanding in the Discourse on the Origin of Inequality that "the law had to be evaded in a thousand ways; inconveniences and disorders had to multiply continually in order to make them finally give some thought to confiding to private people the dangerous trust of public authority" (Rousseau 59). Although Rousseau's idea of a civil society took some developing, it still landed in the right outcome where equality among the people was the safest way to go, and not letting public authority rule their way of life. If this happened who knows how equality shows; it probably comes across as pure chaos. Ultimately, it goes to show that "unruly men [would] rush headlong into slavery" (Rousseau 59). There would be no protection to their being, they would simply be following Locke's idea of uncertainty where equality is presenting itself as an option.…

    • 1596 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Thomas Hobbes believes humans are born evil, their natural instinct is to be envious, violent, and narcissistic, however, by fear and reason, they are capable of preserving peace. On the other hand, John Locke believes humans are mostly peaceful, good, and pleasant, but circumstances can cause people to be violent and war-like. Locke and Hobbes also differed in social contract theories, whereby John Locke believed that all people have rights that need to be protected by a government, yet the people should remain in power; Thomas Hobbes supported the idea that people are all bad, and because of that, an ultimate ruler needs to establish laws that man should abide by. Although these views seem very apples and oranges, there is a huge discrepancy. John Locke promoted the preservation of all human rights, and on several occasions disapproved of slavery, however, it turns out that he actually endorsed it and proposed that people should have absolute power over them.…

    • 1347 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Hobbes Vs Rousseau Essay

    • 858 Words
    • 4 Pages

    With Rousseau believes that these goals can only be realized with the assumption of a great leader into the seat of power. With a great leader laws can be established and thus, enforcement of laws is not a restriction on individual liberty: the individual, as a citizen, explicitly agreed to be constrained if, as a private individual, he did not respect his own will as formulated in the general will. Because laws represent the restraints of civil freedom, they represent the leap made from humans in the state of nature into civil society. In this sense, the law is a civilizing force, and therefore Rousseau believed that the laws that govern a people helped to mold their…

    • 858 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays

Related Topics