Machiavelli And Hobbes Political Analysis

Good Essays
Machiavelli and Hobbes both address the impact the human emotion of fear has on the political realm. In The Prince, Machiavelli explains how fear is a tool meant to be manipulated by the prince as a means to keep the people in line with the law and loyal. Not enough fear instilled in the public may lead them to disloyalty and then the dethroning of the prince; on the other hand, too much fear perpetuates hatred among the people and leads once again to the prince’s removal. Unlike seeing human fear as a tool, Hobbes in the Leviathan describes it more as a natural emotion of human which pushes the creations of covenants—social agreements or contracts among the people and the sovereign. In the state of nature, the natural condition of men without …show more content…
First of all, the manner in which Machiavelli’s theory originated from was his study of history, allowing him to draw conclusions about what is inherent in human nature through past human acts. Humans, to a certain extent, are self-interested, although they can be easily won or lost. In times of trouble, man turns egotistical and look for a leg up within adversity; in times of prosperity, they are trustworthy and loyal to their ruler. Posing a famous political dilemma, Machiavelli asks whether “it is better to be loved than feared, or the reverse” (Chapter XVII). Because he believes man becomes disloyal to the state when times are tough, and the ultimate purpose of the Prince is to maintain order within the state, Machiavelli argues a ruler should be feared. If the prince is loved and circumstances warrant, people are more prone to take advantage of the benevolence of their ruler. Ruling with an iron fist, Machiavelli believes, would ensure obedience from the ruled. Moreover, he does also warn of the dangers of using fear in a negative manner. Never in The Prince does Machiavelli advocate using cruelty for no explicit reason, but instead urges rulers to use it in the interests of the state. Thus, Machiavelli views fear as a necessary evil to the throne, and a tool one must use very cautiously in order to maintain the sanctity of the state. From the …show more content…
Power, as described by Hobbes, is “his present means to obtain some future apparent good and is either original or instrumental” (Part 1, Chapter 10, p. 249). In other words, man has power through two means. Original or natural power is derived from innate abilities (intelligence, creativity, strength, etc.) and instrumental power is derived from reputation, monetary strength, and friends. A person struggles through a lifelong desire for power due to the fact that every other person around has power to prevent one another from obtaining certain power. It is from this idea that Hobbes argues that the fear of death and bodily harm usher man to seek collective peace. The anarchy of the state of nature is consistent with the continual emotion of fear, fear that someone will steal your property or perhaps enslavement. To relieve this tension and enjoy life with less worry, Hobbes claims that people create a social contract between them and a ruler. According to him, people would essentially give up their power to one ruler who in turn, the ruler would ensure they could live peacefully. The only right left to the people, after they give all their power to a ruler and agree to abide by those laws, is the right to not be killed. Similar to Machiavelli, Hobbes also believes that fear is key to maintain power and political authority

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    Even though being a penny pincher is not favorable, it enables the ruler to reign and make decisions that are difficult to make. It will pain the state more to give away their assets than to be conservative. Machiavelli expands further on self-division through the idea of the man and the beast. He states, “A prince should, therefore, understand how to use both the man and the beast” (45). Machiavelli describes how the man represents being in accordance with the laws, but that being in accordance with the laws does not always work.…

    • 1300 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    It is due to man’s tendency to compete, act diffident and seek glory in his natural state that this state often leads to war , more so without a common power to keep men in place . One can argue that Hobbes over-emphasizes the dreadfulness of the state of nature to prove that rational individuals are willing to relinquish certain liberties to obtain the security provided by a Commonwealth, be it one with absolute power. His pessimistic view on people in the state of nature is contrary to that of Locke, who believes that subjects are equal in the state of nature not because anyone is capable of killing anyone, rather because no one is subject to any higher…

    • 1217 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Similarly to having a reputation of stinginess in order to preserve self-image, Machiavelli argues that a ruler must also possess fear from his subjects, as opposed to love. He attributes disloyalty in formerly-devoted subjects to the simple, selfish nature of men, and therefore he argues that fear preserves a prince…

    • 763 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    The value of a prince in Machiavelli’s society could not be understated, he was “to secure himself against enemies, to gain friends, to conquer by force or fraud, to make himself beloved and feared by the people, followed and revered by the soldiers, to destroy those who can and may injure him” (The Prince, 30). The prince’s strength is even important to neighboring nations. Machiavelli argues that the prince “should make himself the leader and defender of his less powerful neighbors” primarily to promote himself but also to please the citizens (The Prince, 9). Without this ideal prince, who would be there to stand up and protect the region? Socrates has a similar idea, “who could be pleased with a city without its laws” (Crito, 53a).…

    • 1445 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    He believes that without cultural motives such as laws, holiness, and profit, people have a basic human nature to act virtuously. On the contrary Machiavelli believes that humans have little morality and a malevolent nature. He states “for men forget more quickly the death of their father then than the loss of their patrimony.”(Machiavelli 228) this exemplifies his perceived shallowness of the human mind, and their obsession with wealth and possessions, over their emotions. This is exceedingly evident throughout his writings on governing, he implies the vice of the human race citing the need for many laws and regulations to keep the people's perceived malicious intents in check. Machiavelli and Lao-tzu had very different ideas about what it takes to be a successful leader.…

    • 1097 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    If he must choose one quality, M claims that the prince is better to be feared than loved, due to people’s human nature. Human nature, according to M, is unpredictable, selfish, and fearful; in other words, in times of danger, people will most likely to flee from danger and abandon their ruler. If the prince is loved, people, who do not have strong loyalty towards the prince, will turn their backs; however, if the prince is feared, loyal citizens will attempt to fight against the vicissitudes and protect their country and the prince. 6. In Chapter 18 Machiavelli discusses the need for a prince to have two natures: a fox and a lion.…

    • 944 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    He also says that defense methods such as war or other methods that justify cruelty must be done. Machiavelli also believes that human nature is greedy and self-interested and that a leader needs to be feared and loved but mostly feared, because fear is consistent with self interest, and that a prince should attend to his own self interests and leaving people alone to keep the nation strong. But Plato's counterclaim to this would be that a ruler can never be just and it is not ok to harm others because that is contradictory to being just. That a ruler can not take actions to far. But because a “Philosopher King” is always seeking knowledge that knowledge would help decide the difference between just and unjust actions.…

    • 707 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Another way that Machiavelli tries to deceive Lorenzo to form an unhealthy vision of what power should look like: “A prince must not worry about the reproach of cruelty when it is a matter of keeping his subjects united and loyal” (339). Such advice is clearly sabotage because any good leader will worry about the well being of their subjects and will worry about the reproach of cruelty. Some readers may see the chapter regarding fear and love as accurate and not a scheme in sabotaging Lorenzo, I believe that if Lorenzo is feared as much…

    • 812 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent 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
    Decent Essays
  • Decent 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
    Decent Essays

Related Topics