Machiavelli and Hobbes both lived through politically unstable times. This significantly impacted their approach to politics compared to those that preceded them. They address political theory from a different perspective. Machiavelli’s assessment of human nature is that people are self-interested, warlike and fundamentally maleficent. Hobbes discussion of human nature is his discussion of the state of nature. A key concept he uses to describe the state of nature is competition. He believed people are violent, warlike and intolerant. Machiavelli and Hobbes shared similar assumptions about humanity and the state of nature; yet differed in their methodology, and the means by which to achieve their individual political goals.
Machiavelli’s assessment …show more content…
He illustrates this idea in The Leviathan by stating, “From this equality of ability, ariseth equality of hope in attaining our ends. And therefore if any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies: and in the way to their end, endeavor to destroy, or subdue one another.” The contributing factor to this state of war is the fact that we are all constantly in fear of being killed and all equally vulnerable to it. Further illustrating this perpetuation of fear he states, “To this warre of every man against every man, this is also consequent that nothing can be unjust. The notion of right and wrong, justice, and injustice have there no place. Where there is no common power, there is no law: where no law, no injustice…” Hobbes believes that because the state of nature is a state of war there is no morality present. Since morality is a quality that people do not possess in the state of nature then killing is not viewed as bad/justifiable or right/wrong because there are no binding laws. Therefore, people constantly fear for their lives because the state of nature is basically an anything goes scenario where people are doing whatever necessary to …show more content…
Machiavelli used inductive reasoning drawing on examples from history as the basis for his arguments. In chapter six of The Prince, Machiavelli begins by stating “...I bring up the greatest examples. For since men almost always walk on paths beaten by others and proceed in their actions by imitation, unable to either stay on the paths of others altogether or to attain the virtue of those whom you imitate, a prudent man should always enter upon the paths beaten by great men, and imitate those who have been most excellent, so that if his own virtue does not reach that far, it is at least in the odor of it.” He constantly refers to previous historical examples to illustrate his points and often references historical figures who were successful and unsuccessful in their attempts to achieve
Machiavelli’s assessment …show more content…
He illustrates this idea in The Leviathan by stating, “From this equality of ability, ariseth equality of hope in attaining our ends. And therefore if any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies: and in the way to their end, endeavor to destroy, or subdue one another.” The contributing factor to this state of war is the fact that we are all constantly in fear of being killed and all equally vulnerable to it. Further illustrating this perpetuation of fear he states, “To this warre of every man against every man, this is also consequent that nothing can be unjust. The notion of right and wrong, justice, and injustice have there no place. Where there is no common power, there is no law: where no law, no injustice…” Hobbes believes that because the state of nature is a state of war there is no morality present. Since morality is a quality that people do not possess in the state of nature then killing is not viewed as bad/justifiable or right/wrong because there are no binding laws. Therefore, people constantly fear for their lives because the state of nature is basically an anything goes scenario where people are doing whatever necessary to …show more content…
Machiavelli used inductive reasoning drawing on examples from history as the basis for his arguments. In chapter six of The Prince, Machiavelli begins by stating “...I bring up the greatest examples. For since men almost always walk on paths beaten by others and proceed in their actions by imitation, unable to either stay on the paths of others altogether or to attain the virtue of those whom you imitate, a prudent man should always enter upon the paths beaten by great men, and imitate those who have been most excellent, so that if his own virtue does not reach that far, it is at least in the odor of it.” He constantly refers to previous historical examples to illustrate his points and often references historical figures who were successful and unsuccessful in their attempts to achieve