Compare And Contrast Machiavelli And Hobbes

708 Words2 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Comparison between plato and machiavelli

Throughout many centuries, different philosophers have argued contrasting ideas on the nature of justice and on the role of government in society. These philosophers, Plato, Machiavelli, and Hobbes, have differing ideas regarding how a state or society should be governed, who should run the state, what the responsibilities of the leader/people are, and the ultimate purpose of the state. All three philosophers were writing in different eras, so they have they have different philosophies. During Plato's era, man based philosophy on utopian ideals and principles. The primary concern was with how things should be, not how they were. If humans were to all behave this way, it would result in a perfect society. However, Machiavelli was a realist, he was concerned about things now, not how things could be if the world was perfect. …show more content…

Hobbes, on the other hand, was concerned about how humans can live together in peace and avoid the danger and fear of civil conflict. Hobbes presents two choices: we should give our obedience to an unaccountable sovereign or what awaits us is a "state of nature" that closely resembles civil war – a situation of universal insecurity, where human cooperation is almost impossible. All three philosophers provide valid arguments on the role of government, but for Hobbes there shouldn’t be a “state of nature” because there would be anarchy in the streets. Also, Plato’s ideal utopian society seems very unrealistic, no society has been able to follow any ideal model, communism failed when the Soviets tried to accomplish it. Machiavelli’s idea of a prudent ruler is bad too, he states that a prudent leader cannot and must not honor his words. Overall, the ideal role of government is a mix of all three philosophers but with their imperfect ideas

Show More
Related

  • Comparing and Contrasting Mirandolla and Machiavelli

    610 Words  | 2 Pages

    This compare and contrast essay will focus on the views of leadership between Mirandolla and Machiavelli. Mirandolla believes that leadership should not be false and that it should follow the rule of reason. He believes that leaders should strive for the heavens and beyond. On the other hand, Machiavelli believed that leadership comes to those who are crafty and forceful. He believed that leaders do not need to be merciful, humane, faithful or religious; they only need to pretend to have all these qualities. Despite both of them being philosophers, they have drastically different views on leadership, partially because of their views on religion are different. Mirandolla was very religious, and Machiavelli was a pragmatist, which means that he was not interested in religion.

    Read More

  • Comparing Government In Republic By Plato And Leviathan

    966 Words  | 2 Pages

    Therefore, their ideal systems of government have little in common in regards to how they operate. Although, one similarity that the two political theories do have is the critical need for some type of organization of the state. Both writers clearly recognize that society cannot exist without any government at all. (both realize that without a hierarchy for plato…. And for hobbes…. ) Moreover, both Plato and Hobbes go on to propose that a strong figure of authority is necessary to maintain control within a state. Their utopias also agree in the fact that if individuals obtain more than just their basic needs of life, disorder in the society would arise. Since both agree that people tend to naturally deviate towards greed, they both acknowledge the need for a ruling body that holds power over the rest of its citizens. However, the process of developing an ideal figure of authority, differ in various

    Read More

  • Comparison of Aristotle and Thomas Hobbes

    1039 Words  | 3 Pages

    The foremost difference between Aristotle and Hobbes, and in turn classical and modern political philosophies’, with regard to a good life and happiness is that of normative judgments about the good life. While Hobbes rejects normative judgments about the good life and discusses human actions without attributions of moral quality, Aristotle offers the exact opposite. In Ethics, Aristotle differentiates between good and evil actions along with what the best good, or summum bonum, for all humans while Hobbes approach argues that good and bad varies from one individual to another with good being the object of an individuals appetite or desire, and evil being an object of his hate and aversion. In addition, Aristotle makes it clear that individuals have an ultimate purpose—that of political animals—that they should strive to become through trial and error throughout their life. Hobbes on the other hand rejects the idea of life having an ultimate purpose, “for there is no such finis ultimus (utmost aim) nor summum bonum (greatest good) as is spoken of in the books of the old moral philosophers…Felicity is a continual progress of the desire, from one object to another, the attaining of the former being still but the way to the latter”. Hobbes defines felicity as the satisfaction of one’s passions as stated in Leviathan “continual success in obtaining those things which a man from time to time desireth, that is to say, continual prospering, is that men call felicity.

    Read More

  • Hobbes’ Leviathan: A Principality? A Republic? Or Something New?

    931 Words  | 2 Pages

    Machiavelli divides all states into principalities and republics, principalities are governed by a solitary figure and republics are ruled by a group of people. With Hobbes’ Leviathan, a new model for governing a territory was introduced that can no longer be equally divided into Machiavelli's two state categories. Hobbes combines the concepts of governing principalities and republics into a new type of political thought that is similar to and different from Machiavelli. Hobbes, unlike Machiavelli, is on the side of the people and not the armed prophets. Hobbes believes that the function of society is not just merely living, but to have a safe and comfortable life.

    Read More

  • Comparing John Locke and Thomas Hobbes

    1242 Words  | 3 Pages

    Thomas Hobbes and John Locke are two political philosophers who are famous for their theories about the formation of the society and discussing man in his natural state.

    Read More

  • Plato vs. Machiavelli

    1692 Words  | 4 Pages

    A longstanding debate in human history is what to do with power and what is the best way to rule. Who should have power, how should one rule, and what its purpose should government serve have always been questions at the fore in civilization, and more than once have sparked controversy and conflict. The essential elements of rule have placed the human need for order and structure against the human desire for freedom, and compromising between the two has never been easy. It is a question that is still considered and argued to this day. However, the argument has not rested solely with military powers or politicians, but philosophers as well. Two prominent voices in this debate are Plato and Machiavelli, both of whom had very different ideas of government's role in the lives of its people. For Plato, the essential service of government is to allow its citizens to live in their proper places and to do the things that they are best at. In short, Plato's government reinforces the need for order while giving the illusion of freedom. On the other hand, Machiavelli proposes that government's primary concern is to remain intact, thereby preserving stability for the people who live under it. The feature that both philosophers share is that they attempt to compromise between stability and freedom, and in the process admit that neither can be totally had.

    Read More

  • Equality: Comparing Hobbes and Locke

    2000 Words  | 4 Pages

    Hobbes and Locke’s each have different ideologies of man’s state of nature that develops their ideal form of government. They do however have similar ideas, such as how man is born with a perfect state of equality that is before any form of government and social contract. Scarcity of goods ultimately leads to Hobbes and Locke’s different states of nature that shapes their two different ideal governments because Hobbes believes that scarcity of goods will bring about a constant state of war, competition, and greed of man that cannot be controlled without a absolute sovereign as government while Locke believes that with reasoning and a unified government, man will succeed in self preservation of himself and others.

    Read More

  • John Locke and Thomas Hobbes

    1073 Words  | 3 Pages

    John Locke and Thomas Hobbes both believe that men are equal in the state of nature, but their individual opinions about equality lead them to propose fundamentally different methods of proper civil governance. Locke argues that the correct form of civil government should be concerned with the common good of the people, and defend the citizenry’s rights to life, health, liberty, and personal possessions. Hobbes argues that the proper form of civil government must have an overarching ruler governing the people in order to avoid the state of war. I agree with Locke’s argument because it is necessary for a civil government to properly care for its citizens, which in turn prevents the state of war from occurring in society. Locke also has a better argument than Hobbes because Hobbes’ belief that it is necessary to have a supreme ruler in order to prevent the state of war in society is inherently flawed. This is because doing so would create a state of war in and of itself.

    Read More

  • Compare And Contrast Girard And Hobbes

    208 Words  | 1 Pages

    With humans being naturally violent, it takes a strong common power and set of laws to be able to balance violence and not let it destroy society. In today’s society, Girard believes judicial systems are the law and help make it so breaking the law with violence is regretted and won’t allow you to do it again. Hobbes believes in the common power and set of laws to be able to let an industry obtain the society. Girard and Hobbes go hand in hand, one can’t work without the other. Laws are set by the common power, if the laws are broken the judicial system takes over and brings justice. Hobbes lacks the theory to decide what happens after the violence takes place against the common power and laws, while Girard doesn’t include anything about how

    Read More

  • Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau

    2134 Words  | 5 Pages

    Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau developed theories on human nature and how men govern themselves. With the passing of time, political views on the philosophy of government gradually changed. Despite their differences, Hobbes and Rousseau, both became two of the most influential political theorists in the world. Their ideas and philosophies spread all over the world influencing the creation of many new governments. These theorists all recognize that people develop a social contract within their society, but have differing views on what exactly the social contract is and how it is established. By way of the differing versions of the social contract Hobbes and Rousseau agreed that certain freedoms had been surrendered for a society’s protection and emphasizing the government’s definite responsibilities to its citizens.

    Read More

  • Compare And Contrast John Locke And Machiavelli

    1447 Words  | 3 Pages

    Machiavelli believed that, ethics and morality were considered in other categories than those generally known. He does not deny the existence of, but did not see how they can be useful in its traditional sense as in politics and in the government of the people. According to Machiavelli, a man is by nature a political angry and fearful. Machiavelli had no high opinion of the people. It is assumed that a person is forced to be good and can get into the number of positive features, such as prudence and courage. The prince can only proceed gently and with love, because that would undermine the naivety of his rule, and hence and the well-being of the state. He thought that, the Lord must act morally as far as possible, immorally to the extent to

    Read More

  • Comparing Machiavelli and Hobbes

    1482 Words  | 3 Pages

    To be successful, one must have the appearance of virtuousness, but not necessarily be virtuous. At least, this appears to be true according to Niccolo Machiavelli's works. Machiavelli's idea of the virtuous republican citizen may be compared to Hobbes' idea of a person who properly understands the nature and basis of sovereign political power. Hobbes' ideas seem to suggest that most anyone can claim rightful authority as there is a belief in God, and one can under Hobbes, claim legitimate authority rather easily. There are few proofs. Machiavelli, on the other hand, takes a strong position and suggests specific criteria in terms of power. With Machiavelli, there is a sense of righteousness and fairness and while he does not sanction authoritarian rule to save man from himself, it is also true that Machiavelli puts a lot of faith in leaders also. In some respects, one can see that the two theorists agree yet Machiavelli’s proposed Political society is more feasible thus superior to that of Hobbes.

    Read More

  • Comparing Thomas Hobbes and Niccolo Machiavelli

    2258 Words  | 5 Pages

    Hobbes and Machiavelli both had revolutionary ideas about government and the essence of Man. Hobbes grew up in England, and had ideas concerning a freer type of government. His main work was ?Leviathan?. Machiavelli was raised in Italy, and had other ideas. Machiavelli focused on how a prince should act in governing his country. Machiavelli?s main work was entitled ?The Prince?. Ironically, neither Machiavelli nor Hobbes suggests a total democracy or a republic, like we use today. As much as Machiavelli and Hobbes are considered great philosophers, the modern government of the United States has proved to be the best.

    Read More

  • Compare And Contrast Plato And Machiavelli

    947 Words  | 2 Pages

    Notwithstanding the two philosophers’ different views on abstract concepts, Machiavelli’s virtù to fortuna is comparable to Plato’s Justice to Good. Each philosopher grants his ruler with a specific trait that deviates from the leader’s acquired knowledge of abstract concepts. Under their beliefs, the best ruler is the one who conforms to this virtuous trait--for Plato, Justice (Plato 519b-c), and for Machiavelli, virtù (Machiavelli, Prince 29). These traits then extend to a multitude of characteristics that define the careful instruction both philosophers laid out and that will allow the leader to directly change society into a worthy political

    Read More

  • Hobbes' View of Human Nature and his Vision of Government

    446 Words  | 1 Pages

    Hobbes view of human nature lead him to develop his vision of an ideal government.  He believed that a common power was required to keep men united.  This power would work to maintain the artificial harmony among the people as well as protect them from foreign enemies.

    Read More

More about Compare And Contrast Machiavelli And Hobbes

Open Document