Comparing Hobbes And Machiavelli's Leviathan

526 Words2 Pages

Now what of the role of the state? The image of Leviathan was very striking and familiar since America already seems to follow the Hobbesian model. Despite the very negative views on humanity presented by Hobbes, I do agree that people need to believe in a higher authority in order to keep themselves in line. Hobbes presented Leviathan in order to accomplish this political feat. Leviathan is made up of all of its citizens and harnesses the power of both the Church and the State. Hobbes believes that the state itself should be the object of worship for the citizens. This can be agreed with to an extent. Obviously, the role I outlined for the Church conflicts with this particular sentiment. However, the element of national unity prescribed in Hobbesian bodies is an element I would like to see continue. Additionally, Machiavelli and Hobbes both state the common good of the State should play an integral role in the political decisions that people make. Machiavelli claims that one should love the state more than their own soul. While this is a bit extreme, loyalty to the state can motivate people to make better decisions for their country, which is something that I would like to see. Currently, I think that most people feel very disenfranchised by their country …show more content…

An increase in political participation is necessary in this country, as the continual low voter participation means that there is a large number of people who feel that their voices are not heard and that they do not matter. And although “having a power to awe them all” is important in maintaining law and order, patriotism and loyalty is necessary to keeping that sort of system in power (Pecknold, 2010). Therefore, the state should focus on making people feel more included in political processes and the citizens should strive to make choices based on the common good of the

Open Document