Preview

Similarities Between Hobbes And Machiavelli

Powerful Essays
Open Document
Open Document
1919 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Similarities Between Hobbes And Machiavelli
Power and Authority as Viewed by Hobbes and Machiavelli
Many medieval political thinkers observed that power and authority came first from God and then from a social mandate. In Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes proposes that power comes from the social mandate first. (Leviathan, Bk. I, Ch. 18, pp.230) He makes this assertion on the basis that it is within the human nature to secure its life through banding together with others to form a community. Each community, then, is held together by a common desire for protection from the wild while maintaining isolation of the self from others. (Leviathan, Bk. I, Ch. 14, pp.190-94) One person must be able to make decisions on behalf of the community, that person, even if he/she does not enjoy unanimous support, becomes the sovereign. The social status of the sovereign is secondary in
…show more content…
Hobbes' concept of authority and power, then, stems from the belief that people have leaders because such people are necessary to maintain the unification of society and thus maintain the protection of the people from the wild. Niccolo Machiavelli had a slightly different idea as to the justification and origin of power and authority. Machiavelli concurs with Hobbes that a sovereign is necessary for the unification of the society. But, rather than being the arbitrary selection of a society, the Machiavellian sovereign is, by necessity, a member of an established and influential family, a man with long blood-lines to other rulers who, by nature of his heredity, has less cause to offend others and thus rules effectively through his urbane nature.(The Prince, Chap II, pp.8) It is the purpose of this paper to examine Hobbes and Machiavelli's conception,

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Powerful Essays

    When comparing Hobbes,’ Sandel’s and Machiavelli’s viewpoints regarding which of Aristotle’s three main categories of knowledge is the most significant for establishing good political systems or making good political decisions, one must consider what each theorists considers to be a good political system and create a link between the two. The most important category of knowledge for establishing and making good political systems for Aristotle is practical knowledge, the purpose of politics is to produce good, virtuous citizens, the law promotes just actions, purpose of legislators is to establish good laws. The most important category of knowledge for Hobbes is scientific knowledge, the absolute sovereign represents the commonwealth of its citizens, the absolute sovereign must uphold their self preservation, and all laws…

    • 1957 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    The understanding of human nature and the effects it has on the individual and society has been a serious topic in the philosophical world. Nicolo Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes were well known for their crucial roles in forming the foundation of political philosophy. While reading through Machiavelli’s The Prince and Hobbes’ Leviathan, both introduced a common focus on political theory even though living approximately 100 years apart. While learning about these two philosophers and their proposed theories, I noticed an innate relationship in the discussion of society’s human nature. Machiavelli ([1532] 2006) in The Prince theorizes the qualities that a dominant leader should have to gain and maintain power.…

    • 292 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Hobbes Vs Machiavelli

    • 121 Words
    • 1 Page

    Lastly, both Hobbes and Machiavelli agree in their opinion of man what is one that is very negative. In the novel The Prince, Machiavelli states that men are “ungrateful, fickle, deceptive, and deceiving, avoiders of danger, eager to gain” (Machiavelli < 1542 > 2006). Similarly, in the novel Leviathan, Hobbes states how the life of a man is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” (Hobbes < 1651 > 2009). This shows how both Machiavelli and Hobbes see men and their lives as very negative aspects, but differ in what there perspectives are of it. Machiavelli explains how men are unreliable and not worth trusting when Hobbes is explaining how life naturally is terrible and without sovereignty, life and man are nothing.…

    • 121 Words
    • 1 Page
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    In Hobbes’ mind humans are naturally violent and need to control to avoid any outbursts which would destroy social order (63). People with this thought process saw that the body in power should have complete authority over their subjects with no restraint on their power and no one being able to remove them from their throne. This however is setting a kingdom up for failure as even though some people can be prone to violence, oppressing them with a monarch that controls them too harshly or that are disinterested in ruing a kingdom can cause an even more violent uprising which is displayed in the French revolution. Nonetheless, having a government body put in power is necessary as humans do require leadership and social order but that same government body must be held accountable if there are caught doing any wrongdoings that could severely hinder the progress of the community or create arduous situations to their…

    • 1100 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    The source argues that in the name of protecting civil liberties, the mass people have too much of a say over things, and that those strong leaders in power do not "get a chance to serve the common good." The ideology presented in the source is that a single, strong leader provides more stability than a democracy. The source presented advocates in favour of a collective, authoritarian form of government. The philosopher Thomas Hobbes would have supported the source by referring to society's need for a "leviathan" or centralization of power, since he believed that people were incapable of governing themselves. However, this source is not a complete rejection of the values and principles of liberalism as it still maintains democracy as the system of government used, and democracy is…

    • 1625 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Many philosophers, such as John Locke and Thomas Hobbes, have discussed over the years if he human race is naturally good or evil. People than choice their side of the argument, one side believing that humans have a basically good nature that is corrupted by society, while the other side believes that humans have a bad nature that is kept in check by society. As John Locke believes that the human race is good, it is reasonable to accept as true because we are born neutral, with free will, and fear of a higher power.…

    • 577 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Throughout history, man has continued to propose reform in order to ameliorate the condition of his society. Following the middle ages, a time of corrupt church institutions and the break of deleterious disease, Europe was in desperate need of rectification. The birth of the Renaissance was not only a birth of novel yet classical learning but the emergence of a new, secular and individualistic way of thinking. Such ideation perpetuated the talented intellectuals of the time to formulate new ideas, and in Niccolo Machiavelli’s case, a new way to govern. In his book, The Prince, Machiavelli uses his “how to guide” to delineate the political theory a prince should use in order to secure his power and govern his people effectively.…

    • 623 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan expressed his views of how the government should run the people they governed. Leviathan stated that the people should hand over their rights to one strong ruler. He believed that all humans were all naturally selfish and wicked and by having a ruler to have complete control over them, they will gain order and obedience. Thomas believed that without a strong ruler, people will constantly have war with one another and life would be “poor and short.” Hobbes called this agreement by which people created this type of government the “social contract”. In short, Hobbes believed that the best type of government was an absolute monarchy, which will impose order and demand obedience; a “sea monster” type of ruler to control the wicked people.…

    • 478 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were very different Enlightenment philosophers.They had many similarities and differences on what form of government they should form for the people.For example Thomas Hobbes believed in a powerful government,and John Locke believed in a limited government where the government should protect the people’s natural rights. Both of these philosophers were seventeen century enlightenment thinkers.Thomas Hobbes and John Locke had very different points of view on how the government should be formed for the people.…

    • 539 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    In an effort to reimagine politics and diverge from the fanciful teachings of the ancients, three optimistic realists emerged to begin a philosophical revolution. The garden of modern politics was begun by Machiavelli who cleared the land of the stones of antiquated virtue and tilled the soil. Then came Hobbes, who added the fertilizer of enlightened self-interest, the water of reason, and the seeds of human nature. Finally came Locke who, upon seeing that Hobbes’ seeds had grown into weeds of despotic monarchy, ripped them from the ground and replaced them with the seeds of liberalism. What Locke viewed as weeds, Hobbes viewed as the form of government most conducive to stability and peace. Locke’s Second Treatise of Government provides an argument against absolute hereditary monarchies while exalting liberalism as the paradigm of politics.…

    • 1565 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    A very long time ago, there was a time when humanity had no rules. One could say that humanity wouldn’t even be considered humanity. This time period was ironically ruled by Charles Darwin’s idea of the Natural Selection. It was barbaric, and it was every man for himself. The idea of the Survival of the Fittest is that the strongest survive and then produce offspring with favorable traits that will go on to survive and so on.…

    • 762 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Machiavelli's The Prince

    • 1518 Words
    • 7 Pages

    Is a just person the best choice for a ruler; many philosophers have laid out different ways in which they believe a society should be ran whether it be a single ruler such as a prince or multiple rulers like philosophy kings. Machiavelli intended for a society/principality to be ruled a strong ruler whether he be just or unjust, moral or immoral; whereas Plato believed for a society to work a just ruler such as the philosopher kings along with its other social counterparts was the perfect society. This paper intends to show how a just ruler was not something Machiavelli saw as pertinent to a society's survival whereas Plato deemed it to be at necessary for order and efficiency and for a city to work.…

    • 1518 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Among the most widely-read of the Renaissance thinkers was Niccolò Machiavelli, a Florentine politician who retired from public service to write at length on the skill required for successfully running the state. Impatient with abstract reflections on the way things "ought" to be, Machiavelli focused…

    • 4722 Words
    • 19 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Petrarch and Machiavelli

    • 820 Words
    • 4 Pages

    In the fourteenth century, the humanist philosopher Francesco Petrarch wrote a letter entitled How a Ruler Ought to Govern His Sate. Nearly a century later, another philosopher by the name of Niccolo Machiavelli wrote a book about governing, The Prince. The two documents show many similarities in content and theme. While the two wrote in similar subject matter, it is clear that these philosophers possess distinctly different viewpoints on how a ruler should govern. In Petrarch’s How a Ruler Ought to Govern His Sate and Machiavelli’s The Prince, both philosophers possess different opinions on how a ruler ought to govern. In particular Machiavelli pays specific attention to the importance of appearing like a good ruler. There is much evidence to support this in the readings.…

    • 820 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The Prince, written by Niccolo Machiavelli, is an informative gateway into his philosophies of what made a perfect government in a time where princedoms and monarchies were the primary form of government. In today’s societies, many people believe that since his work is an analysis of monarchies, that it no longer holds value in comparison to democracy. However, ‘prince’ and ‘political leader’ can be interchanged, despite respective differences of the current and past influence that these figures possess. Many themes discussed in The Prince are still highly relevant today, including characteristics of a strong leader, righteousness of actions, and military structure. Machiavelli addressed many themes such as the characteristics that a prince…

    • 643 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays