Hobbes Vs Machiavelli

Unlike the idealistic ancient philosophers such as Plato, who discusses politics in “the context of things above politics” (Machiavelli vii), the modern philosophers, Niccolò Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes, take a realistic approach in explaining political actions and outcomes. Considered to be among the first social scientists, they both try to delve deep into the nature of mankind and its relationship to politics. In the course of doing so, both authors seem to believe that virtue and morality, good and bad, just and unjust, are all abstract concepts that exist only because of perception and consequences. However, each of the authors resorts to different approaches in exploring the origin and nature of virtue and morality, and in explaining
But Machiavelli appears to be much more prudent in addressing this question than Hobbes, who seems to be more sophisticated. Of course it is easy to grammatically distinguish “good” from “bad” – they are antonyms. But it is rather difficult to determine what is “good” or “bad” in real life. Hobbes claims that good and evil (bad) are “names that signify our appetites and aversions” (Hobbes 100). They vary depending on one’s state of condition. But he also asserts that “all men agree” that all his “laws of nature (which are the paths to peace) are good and so are moral virtues, and their contrary vices, evil” (Hobbes 216). This statement seems to be in contradiction with his earlier proposition about what is good or bad. According to Machiavelli, it is not the question of whether one is good or not that is relevant but how to appear good when necessary. Machiavelli argues that the Prince should “learn to be able not to be good and to use this and not use it according to necessity” (Machiavelli 61). This is a profound statement that goes a long way in criticizing the idea of “good” life. At first glance, it would appear as if Machiavelli is advocating for the need to be cruel and deceptive. But a much closer objective reading would reveal that he is mainly trying to argue that metaphysics is inconsistent with real life. Thus, virtue as an abstract concept can never be a reliable and effective guide for political or even social actions. The Prince should therefore be concerned with maintaining his well being and the well being of the state. And the best way to go about doing that is relying on one’s own prowess. Machiavelli’s metaphor about the lion and the fox enables us to understand how relying on oneself can largely determined virtuous acts. He recommends that the Prince be able to meticulously combine the quality of the