Niccolo Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes are two men that have contributed to political science and philosophy, over the course of their history, each contributed ideas that are still relevant today. Machiavelli’s considered as one of the founders of modern political science for his realistic views in The Prince, which was wrote for aspiring leaders. His ideology is that in order to be successful, you have to be willing to get your hands dirty, and be willing to use your own people to do so/if need be. Whereas Hobbes, is considered the founder of human rights, but in the same breath he also mentions the idea of absolute power. The Leviathan was concerned with the cause of civil war and how to create a permanent solution to end it. Both men have It consists of how Machiavelli believes an aspiring prince should behave, and how best to rule the land in order to be successful. The Prince has many ideas within, but one of the main things that sticks out is the perspective of figuring things out for yourself. As in, don’t let anyone else decide for you, figure out what you think is the best way to achieve your goals and aim for that. Within the state, the people you have to be more concerned about is making sure the masses love you. If your people can’t stand you, you will not be in a position of greatness, and if it comes down to it Machiavelli says “it’s better to be feared then hated”. Machiavelli’s point for aspiring leaders is that they must adopt a new morality and virtu when ruling, basically stating that if you cannot get your hands dirty you should not bother going into politics. He argues that the prince’s only obligation is to protect his state, by any means necessary, and to never relax as the state is always under threat. Machiavelli says that when it comes to ruling, you should rule with the single focus of war, whenever you are at war with someone it distracts the masses from what you’re doing. If you are a leader you must be good at waging wars, for that demonstrates your skills as a leader that is willing to protect the people of your
Machiavelli strongly believes that a prince should be involved in the military and understand all military matters. A prince must always be concentrated on war. Whether his country is at war or not, he must always be prepared. He must continuously be training, mentally and physically, and know the terrain around him. Machiavelli believes that a prince who does not attain these military related qualities will fail as a leader. In addition, during times of war, a successful prince should always question all outcomes of possible battles and prepare himself for the future by studying past wars. Studying the
Niccolo Machiavelli's The Prince and Thomas Hobbes's Leviathan reveals on how to have an absolute government. While Machiavelli focused more on the leader part, Hobbes wrote about the government itself. Although they fixated on different aspects, they shared the common goal of providing security in an insecure world. The Prince by Machiavelli provides an analysis on how to govern and maintain power in a principality.
He believes that by transferring all rights to a sovereign, the threat of the state of nature will be diminished. A sovereign elected will be able to represent and protect everyone equally, they are not a ruler of the people, but a representative. The Leviathan differs from a principality and a republic by establishing the institution of the commonwealth through the social contract. To understand how the Leviathan differs from either a principality or a republic, one must look at the principles of each to decipher how Hobbes bears resemblance to and disagrees with Machiavelli. The Leviathan state resembles a principality by giving absolute power to one sovereign.
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.
Machiavelli believes that a government should be very structured, controlled, and powerful. He makes it known that the only priorities of a prince are war, the institutions, and discipline. His writings describes how it is more important for a prince to be practical than moral. This is shown where he writes, "in order to maintain the state he is often obliged to act against his promise, against charity, against humanity, and against religion" (47). In addition, Machiavelli argues that a prince may have to be cunning and deceitful in order to maintain political power. He takes the stance that it is better for the prince to be feared than loved. His view of how a government should run and his unethical conduct are both early signs of dictatorship.
In The Prince, Machiavelli separates ethics from politics. His approach to politics, as outlined in The Prince, is strictly practical. Machiavelli is less concerned with what is right and just, and instead with what will lead to the fortification of the government and the sustainment of power. Machiavelli believed that a ruler should use any means necessary to obtain and sustain power. He says, “…people judge by outcome. So if a ruler wins wars and holds onto power, the means he has employed will always be judged honorable, and everyone will praise them” (Machiavelli, 55). According to Machiavelli, the ends of an action justify the means (Machiavelli, 55). His motivation for these views in The Prince was the reunification of the Italian city-states (Machiavelli, 78-79). Machiavelli wanted Italy to return to its glory of the Roman Empire (Machiavelli 78-79). Some of the beliefs of Machiavelli could be perceived as evil and cruel, but he found them necessary. Machiavelli was not concerned with making people happy. His purpose was outcome and success, and in his opinion, the only way to be successful was to be realistic. These views of Machiavelli could classify him as one of the earliest modern
For all of Machiavelli’s ruthlessness and espousal of deceit, he knew the value of authenticity and relying on his administration. A true leader cannot achieve greatness alone. Machiavelli says that the prince is the state, and the state is the prince. This means that whatever vision and principles the leader holds in the highest regard, they must be known to the state so that they can be realized. He believed that no matter how a prince was elected, his success would depend largely on his ministers. Collaboration between a prince and ministers would create an atmosphere of harmony and camaraderie, highly reducing the chances of rebellion. Without the support and cooperation of the people, military action is not possible, expansion is not possible and most importantly, governance is not possible. If a leader does not satisfy the needs of the people, they have the power to overthrow him through strength in numbers. Thus, a leader depends just as much on the people as they do on him. A leader must be able to convince the people to buy into his visio...
Niccolò Machiavelli and Martin Luther King Jr. are two of the greatest political leaders in history. Although opposite in the spectrum of beliefs, and separated by time and location, these two influenced our world in unbelievable ways. They both helped shape the world as we know it today. In this paper, I will discuss the lives of these two monumental leaders and explain the similarities between their acheivements.
As he begins to conclude, Machiavelli states that the prince: “should think about avoiding those things which make him hated and despised.” (Mach 48) Although these lack any withstanding moral values, they are effective in the sense that they better serve their purpose. Machiavelli was seeking to display a way to hold political power by any means possible not a utopian state. This may mean malicious acts, imprisonment, and torture, or it may mean the utilization of power to achieve a common good. Machiavelli doesn’t elaborate on this. He concentrates on a realistic approach towards government, as he remains concerned with the establishment and protection of power.
The sections that I will be presenting are 73, 74, and 75. I will discuss the political ideas of Niccolo Machiavelli, Francesco Guicciardini, and Thomas Hobbes during the time of Florence Republic. First, Niccolo Machiavelli was born in Florence, Italy in 1469 at a time when the country was in political upheaval. Italy was divided between four dominant city-states, by which each of them was always at the mercy of the continual changing of princes and governments.
While both Machiavelli and Hobbes agree that there should be rule by a sovereign, and that this individual will probably make better decisions than individuals, the two disagree on basic assumptions. While Machiavelli believes that the ends justify the means, Hobbes tends to align religion and politics and sees the way in which policies play out as vital for the moral good of society. Machiavelli embraces the idea of a virtuous republican citizen similar to how one might consider a citizen today. To give power and authority to the individual in charge, and trust in what he is doing, is to be virtuous. Hobbes' idea of a subject who properly understands the nature and basis of sovereign political power is more important than the simple, unquestioning support of the leader.
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.
The Prince by Niccolò Machiavelli isn't about one man's ways to feed his power hungry mindset through gluttony, nor is it just explaining altercations between a nation's states. This writing is regarding to how one's self-confidence can make them become powerful in a society and also, the way morals and politics differ and can be separate in a government. Originally, Machiavelli wrote The Prince to gain support from Lorenzo de' Medici, who during the era, was governor of Florence. As meant as writing for how a society should be run, this book has been read by many peoples around the world who want to have better knowledge of the perfect stability of beliefs and politics required to run a good civilization.
Niccolò Machiavelli was born into a world of drastic change, Renaissance Italy, that would cause his mind to conjure ideas about many political issues transferred into books that the entire world has profited from since. His ideas were incredibly relevant to his time, because they suggested harsh governments, the only kind of governments that seemed to be working. He proposed creating these harsh governments through a separation of personal morality and political behavior. His ideas were so relevant and so universal, that they still influence politics today. Niccolò Machiavelli proposed the creating of strong central government more powerful than anything else, including religion and morality.
achiavelli presents a unique view on governing a state. Machiavelli believes the ruling Prince should be the only authority that