Machiavelli's Rejection Of Natural Law

Hobbes refutes Machiavelli’s arguments concerning an ideal prince by arguing against Machiavelli’s rejection of natural law, his subsequent alteration of justice, and his misapplication of the good life. Hobbes begins by refuting Machiavelli’s rejection of natural law. While both men cite the nature of man as violent whether in acquisition through force, or a standing disposition of war, Hobbes argues that this bent of men stands in opposition to natural law. While men remain independent sovereigns forever entangled in war, “nothing can be unjust. The notions of right and wrong, justice and injustice, have there no place,” In war, every man has a right to everything, thus destroying any hope of security. However, Hobbes proposes that all …show more content…
Hobbes ascribes the immutability of natural law to the existence of justice. While men live outside the social contract, nothing can be unjust, because they ignore natural laws. When men live inside the social contract, they live in accordance with natural laws. Machiavelli’s insistence that men should always conquer, because it is a natural thing leaves no room for natural law. Machiavelli’s rejection of natural law destroys the foundation for justice. He blurs the lines between vice and virtue, first by mixing the order when discussing them, and next by instructing his prince that some virtues are in fact vices. He assures his prince, “if one considers everything well, one will find something appears to be virtue, which if pursued would be one’s ruin,”. This decimation of the distinction between virtues and vices destroys the foundations of Aristotle’s ethics and politics, which in turn destroys the pursuit of the good. Without clear and distinct virtues and vices, justice remains inscrutable and good …show more content…
Men enter into communities to attain peace. This peace allows for the pursuit of individual good and for protection. Unlike Machiavelli, Hobbes asserts that, “all men agree…that peace is good, and therefore also the way or means of peace, which…are justice, gratitude, modesty, equity, and mercy.” The pursuit of peace rests upon the foundation of justice. Justice clearly divides between vice and virtue, “…the laws of nature are good; that is to say, moral virtue; and their contrary, vices, evil,”. Without moral distinctions, Machiavelli’s prince morphs into a terrifying facade of virtue. Machiavelli encourages his prince to guild himself in the dressing of virtue, but not the actual virtues themselves. He insists that, “it is not necessary for a prince to have all the above-mentioned qualities in fact, but it is indeed necessary to appear to have them,”. This farce, this mockery of justice and virtue, is the highest form of injustice of which Cicero speaks. He resolutely asserts that “ taking all forms of injustice into account, none is more deadly than that practiced by people who act as if they are good men when they are being most treacherous,”. Machiavelli’s rejection of natural law destroys any hope for justice. He obliterates the telos of society, which is the pursuit of justice and the common good. Hobbes rejects this disregard for natural law, thus saving the telos of society. However, Machiavelli’s deception exceeds