Human Nature in Hobbes and Machiavelli and the use of a Sovereign for Peace or Power The philosophers Thomas Hobbes and Niccolo Machiavelli, both speak of humans in their natural state, and how they are self-centred and greedy. Hobbes, in his work Leviathan, goes on to show that in order to control human nature, society must elect for a sovereign to rule and serve as the head, to represent the entire population. In contrast, Machiavelli in The Prince, shows how even with the sovereign in place, human nature will shine through and attempt to overthrow the ruler. Through his work, he teaches those in that position how to remain in power, or even those without power how to gain it and keep it. In this paper I will show through the works of these …show more content…
In chapter XVII of The Prince, he says “this is to be asserted in general of men, that they are, ungrateful, fickle, false, cowardly, covetous” which are all traits that show a person is selfish in nature and greedy. He also states that “men more quickly forget the death of their father than the loss of their patrimony” which shows that their inheritance is more important to a person than the loss of their own father, a person whom children look up to their whole lives but according to Machiavelli, they are easily forgotten when wealth is on the line. However, Machiavelli is describing his views on human nature from a society that already has a sovereign. He is saying that human nature will prevail even when people have become civilized and have an elected ruler unlike Hobbes whose argument is from the natural non-societal version of human …show more content…
Hobbes believes that in order to suppress human nature, the people must elect for a sovereign to be chosen and establish moral guidelines for society. This is the only way for people to become organized and not be at war with each other; the only way to suppress human nature in its natural form. Now with this newly elected sovereign, there might be conflict where people do not think that one man should have so much power over so many. However, Hobbes says “for all men are by nature provided of notable multiplying glasses, through which, every little payment appeareth a great grievance; but are destitute of those prospective glasses, to see a fare off the miseries that hang over them” which means that although people might not agree with the sovereign and don 't want to pay taxes and such, Hobbes is telling them to look at the way life was and could be without a sovereign. People will be reduced once again to act like animals and constantly be at war with everyone and will find themselves back in that natural state of selfishness and greed. A sovereign is needed to keep the
It is worth noting, however, that this is an apparently unattainable reality. This essay has been written with an ideal in mind, with Hobbes’ state fully realised. Given the chance today, in the existing world, between the Prince and the Sovereign, with no promise of that ideal being fulfilled, I would choose Machiavelli’s Prince; the Prince is far more pragmatic, a safer ruler. A benevolent absolute ruler is an unattainable ideal – a pragmatic, cunning ruler with an astute political mind is not. But of course, if it was possible, I would choose the more representative, consented to, and benevolent Hobbesian
To Machiavelli, people are children that need order. They are childlike, not in their innocence, but in their passions. They are ungrateful, greedy, deceptive, and fickle. However, they are also rational and interested in avoiding danger. In calculating their interests they can perceive the need to join together to pursue common goals, such as conquest for acquisition, p...
Some may argue that what Machiavelli is saying that subjects should be cared for, but based on the harsh diction like crush and cripple, when speaking about how to treat the people that pose a threat and due to the repetitive nature these comments, it is evident that Machiavelli advises a ruler not to care for the people, but to manipulate the people to keep the country or community
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.
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.
Despite it's age, I believe that Machiavelli's writing about individualism in The Prince is relevant to people who are not princes because Machiavelli's main themes are applicable to people of all types. To prove this I have organized my paper into four main sections. Section one- Machiavelli's History, will move toward the thesis by showing that Machiavelli's life experience was not that of royalty. Section two- Individualism, will show how Machiavelli's writing was individualistic, and how that relates to modern people. Section three- The Prince, will explore the main themes of Machiavelli's chief written work, creating the basis of comparison between Machiavelli's writing and modern life. Section four- Machiavelli in Business, relates the themes of section three to modern business.
Hobbes views human nature as the war of each man against each man. For Hobbes, the essence of human nature can be found when we consider how man acts apart from any government or order. Hobbes describes the world as “a time of war, where every man is enemy to every man.” (Hobbes mp. 186) In such a world, there are “no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” (Hobbes mp. 186) Hobbes believes that laws are what regulate us from acting in the same way now. He evidences that our nature is this way by citing that we continue to lock our doors for fear of theft or harm. Hobbes gives a good argument which is in line with what we know of survivalism, and evidences his claim well. Hobbes claims that man is never happy in having company, unless that company is utterly dominated. He says, “men have no pleasure, (but on the contrary a great dea...
Machiavelli’s views were drastically different from other humanists at his time. He strongly promoted a secular society and felt morality was not necessary but stood in the way of a successfully governed state. He stated that people generally tended to work for their own best interests and gave little thought to the well being of the state. He distrusted citizens saying, “In time of adversity, when a state is in need of its citizens, there are few to be found.” In his writings in The Prince, he constantly questioned the citizens’ loyalty and warned for the leaders to be wary in trusting citizens. His radical and distrusting thoughts on human nature were derived out of concern for Italy’s then unstable government. Machiavelli also had a s...
In sophisticated prose, Hobbes manages to conclude that human beings are all equal in their ability to harm each other, and furthermore that they are all capable of rendering void at will the covenants they had previously made with other human beings. An absolutist government, according to Hobbes, would result in a in a society that is not entirely focused on self-preservation, but rather a society that flourishes under the auspices of peace, unity, and security. Of all the arguably great philosophical discourses, Hobbes in particular provides one of the surest and most secure ways to live under a sovereign that protects the natural liberties of man. The sovereign government is built upon the idea of stability and security, which makes it a very intriguing and unique government indeed. The aforementioned laudation of Hobbes and his assertions only helps to cement his political theories at the forefront of the modern
Hobbes explanation of the state and the sovereign arises from what he calls “the State of Nature”. The State of Nature is the absence of political authority. There is no ruler, no laws and Hobbes believes that this is the natural condition of humanity (Hobbes 1839-45, 72). In the State of Nature there is equality. By this, Hobbes means, that there is a rough equality of power. This is because anyone has the power to kill anyone (Hobbes 1839-45, 71). Hobbes argues that the State of Nature is a violent, continuous war between every person. He claims that the State of nature is a state of w...
����������� Thomas Hobbes is an important political and social philosopher. He shares his political philosophy in his work Leviathan. Hobbes begins by describing the state of nature, which is how humans coped with one another prior to the existence of government. He explains that without government, �the weakest has the strength to kill the strongest� (Hobbes 507). People will do whatever it takes to further their own interests and protect their selves; thus, creating a constant war of �every man against every man� (Hobbes 508). His three reasons for people fighting amongst each other prior to government include �competition,� �diffidence,� and �glory� (Hobbes 508). He explains how men fight to take power over other people�s property, to protect them selves, and to achieve fame. He describes life in the state of nature as being �solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short� (Hobbes 508). Hobbes goes on to say that if men can go on to do as they please, there will always be war. To get out of this state of nature, individuals created contracts with each other and began to form a government.
The main critics of Thomas Hobbes’ work are most often those with a more optimistic view of human nature. However, if one is to really look at a man’s actions in depth, a self-serving motivation can always be found. The main problem with Hobbes’ claims is that he does not account for the more Darwinian perspective that helping one’s own species survive is at the same time a selfish and unwar-like act. Thus his conclusion that without a governing body, we are essentially at war with one another is not completely true as years of evolution can help disprove.
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.
Two of the greatest philosophers of all time are Thomas Hobbes and Niccolo Machiavelli. Hobbes was born in 1588 in England, when absolutism was taking hold in Europe. His most famous work was 'Leviathan', written in 1651. Hobbes discussed the ideal state and innate laws of man and nature, among other things. Machiavelli was born in Italy in 1469, a time when his home country was ruled mostly by foreign powers. His hometown, Florence, was still independent. Machiavelli's most famous work, 'The Prince', tells of his ideal state and ideal ruler. Machiavelli goes on to describe the perfect prince, a picture of cruelty and cunning. Though both genius philosophers, their views differ greatly. Hobbes believed in a minimalist government where the state only interfered with the lives of the citizens when it had to. The ideal kingdom was the kingdom of God, in Hobbes' mind. In Machiavelli's 'The Prince', he describes his ideal government with a strong monarch, and fearful subjects. In Hobbes' system, a close relationship was kept with God, while in Machiavelli's reason was the only rule. The most important and most dealt-with area of dialogue is the 'ideal' government.
Machiavelli’s advice to princes directly correlated to his view on human nature. He believed that every common man was born evil and selfish. That did not stop him, however, from saying that humans many show instances when they exhibit generosity and wholeheartedness. He does tell princes, however, not to count on the few occurrences that may happen, and he says, “It is necessary to be a prince to know thoroughly the nature of the people, and one of the populace to know the nature of princes”. He is saying is that it is imperative that a prince knows the natural human nature, that each and every human will become more self-interested than interested in the good of the state. If he is ignorant to that fact, his kingdom/area of rule will deteriorate simply because he believes in the citizens that occupy it. He does believe, however, that with the right training, a human being can be molded (with the help of the state, of course) and he says, “Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many.” Although he believes that people cannot change themselves for the good, he does think that the state and military can shape humans for the better, but there will always be