Machiavelli Vs Hobbes On Human Nature
Niccolo Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes were two very important philosophers and political thinkers who attempted to understand human nature and how human nature affects political theory. In this paper I will compare and contrast the different methodologies Niccolo Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes employed, and then analyze how this difference in methodology created a divergent view of human nature. I will then explain their differing views through the idea of self-interest.
To compare and contrast Machiavelli and Hobbes, I will begin by analyzing the important idea in the following passage by Machiavelli:
But my hope is to write a book that will be useful… and so I thought it sensible to go straight to a discussion of how things are in real …show more content…
Machiavelli was a political observer – he drew conclusions based on the historical evidence and experiences of past leaders and compiled all that he had learned into a manual, or handbook, titled The Prince, which at that time was generally a ‘how-to’ essay for princes on how to attain power and maintain power. Instead of constructing ideas of how things should be in a theoretical or imaginary world, Machiavelli much preferred a realistic analysis of how things actually were in the real world. Machiavelli was a firm believer that the best way to achieve power and to keep it was to follow the advice and actions of those who had succeed, and to avoid the actions of those who had failed – one must refrain from repeating the past mistakes of …show more content…
Machiavelli drew conclusions about human nature by observing the way people acted and he looked for the common traits they shared. From these commonalities, Machiavelli asserted that there were certain traits inherent in human nature. To some extent, Machiavelli agreed with Hobbes that people are generally self-interested. Although Machiavelli thought that people’s affection and opinions could be easily swayed, he highly distrusted people; he believed that in favorable times people could be trustworthy, but in times of misfortune or turmoil people would turn against their ruler. Machiavelli argued that while people possessed the ability to be good, they only did so when it was in their best interest to behave. He goes on to write about the ways in which a prince or ruler should behave in order to maintain power and governance over his
To compare and contrast Machiavelli and Hobbes, I will begin by analyzing the important idea in the following passage by Machiavelli:
But my hope is to write a book that will be useful… and so I thought it sensible to go straight to a discussion of how things are in real …show more content…
Machiavelli was a political observer – he drew conclusions based on the historical evidence and experiences of past leaders and compiled all that he had learned into a manual, or handbook, titled The Prince, which at that time was generally a ‘how-to’ essay for princes on how to attain power and maintain power. Instead of constructing ideas of how things should be in a theoretical or imaginary world, Machiavelli much preferred a realistic analysis of how things actually were in the real world. Machiavelli was a firm believer that the best way to achieve power and to keep it was to follow the advice and actions of those who had succeed, and to avoid the actions of those who had failed – one must refrain from repeating the past mistakes of …show more content…
Machiavelli drew conclusions about human nature by observing the way people acted and he looked for the common traits they shared. From these commonalities, Machiavelli asserted that there were certain traits inherent in human nature. To some extent, Machiavelli agreed with Hobbes that people are generally self-interested. Although Machiavelli thought that people’s affection and opinions could be easily swayed, he highly distrusted people; he believed that in favorable times people could be trustworthy, but in times of misfortune or turmoil people would turn against their ruler. Machiavelli argued that while people possessed the ability to be good, they only did so when it was in their best interest to behave. He goes on to write about the ways in which a prince or ruler should behave in order to maintain power and governance over his