Preview

Hobbes

Satisfactory Essays
Open Document
Open Document
510 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Hobbes
Trevor Gillette
6/16/2011
Paper #1: Machiavelli and Hobbes

These two famous philosophers, Machiavelli and Hobbes, lived a century apart from one another, but both still had to live during difficult times. Machiavelli the writer of The Prince was from Italy, where as Hobbes who wrote the Leviathan came from England. Because both lived in hard times you can see why they would have similar political views, however due to the fact that they were a century apart and came from different cultures would explain how they differ in some areas when it comes to their matters of beliefs. When it came to politics both philosophers believed that only one man should be in power. This way people wouldn’t govern themselves and the country wouldn’t be “…considered in the nature of war” according to Hobbes. (44, Kellerman) Machiavelli and Hobbes both believed that whomever the ruler maybe that he must rule by using fear, but not to the point of being hated. They need to uphold the law and punish those who break it to keep the fear in the people, but yet not become a tyrant to where people begin to hate you. Both of the philosophers main focus was how to not only gain power, but to maintain power as well. Machiavelli said that “The prince should nonetheless make himself feared in such a mode that if he does not acquire love, he escapes hatred…”(35, Kellerman) I find this to be one of Machiavelli’s main points because he said you must find a middle place between feared and love, and because fear is not the same thing as hatred, that is what you must do to maintain power. This is where we begin to see the differences in the two political leaders. Yes, both believe that one man should be in power, but Hobbes says that all men are created equal. He thinks that yes, the leader should uphold the law, but do it in a way so that the country or group is unified for this leader and they do it for the commonwealth. However, because Hobbes wants his leader to lead as if all men are

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    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.…

    • 514 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Machiavelli Vs Hitler

    • 595 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Machiavelli and Adolf Hitler are both names synonymous with evil: killing without reason, fear tactics, cruelty. “Adolf Hitler, according to his own word, kept The Prince by his bedside, where it served as a constant source of inspiration…” (Downs 201). Machiavelli’s work is known as a guide to holding absolute power; Hitler took The Prince’s advice, but the extent is up for debate. They shared basic mutual principles, but certain technicalities are different. Hitler took a great amount of inspiration from Machiavelli and applied them to his rule, but he did things that Machiavelli condemned in The Prince, such as the instability that resulted from his rule.…

    • 595 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    The text states, “be the proclaimed author of everything that their existing sovereign does and judges fit to be done….nothing the sovereign does can wrong any of his subjects, nor ought any of them to accuse him of injustice.” (Hobbes, 2004, p. 80) Hobbes believes that to avoid the state of nature, every man versus every man, an absolute sovereign must govern the people to ensure there are no disagreements. According to Hobbes the absolute sovereign is the starting point of all laws and is given this power by the citizens, the text states “the authority that has been given to ‘this man’ by every individual man in the commonwealth, he has conferred on him the use of so much power and strength that people’s fear of it enables him to harmonize and control the wills of them all.” The sovereign was chosen to represent the will of the people, and knows what is best for…

    • 1957 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    The understanding of human nature and the effects it has on the individual and society has been a serious topic in the philosophical world. Nicolo Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes were well known for their crucial roles in forming the foundation of political philosophy. While reading through Machiavelli’s The Prince and Hobbes’ Leviathan, both introduced a common focus on political theory even though living approximately 100 years apart. While learning about these two philosophers and their proposed theories, I noticed an innate relationship in the discussion of society’s human nature. Machiavelli ([1532] 2006) in The Prince theorizes the qualities that a dominant leader should have to gain and maintain power.…

    • 292 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Machiavelli was a Florentine man of many skills. He was a renowned politician, author, and philosopher during the Renaissance, whose views and opinions affect the way people still think today. The Prince is his most famous work and in it he essentially states that humans are “ungrateful, fickle, deceptive and deceiving”. For that reason, a leader should rule through fear rather than love. However, what Europeans needed during the 14th, 15th, and 16th centuries were compassionate rulers. They were already frightened and disunited during the middle ages, thus adding a fearful leader to the mix would not help citizens feel safer.…

    • 101 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Niccolo Machiavelli was an Italian historian, politician, diplomat, and philosopher during the late 1400s early 1500s. Machiavelli is considered the father of modern political theory; and his theories are most prominent in his short book, “The Prince”. Machiavelli’s “The Prince” is main purpose is to tell rulers how to remain in power once they have gained it. The best way to go about ruling according to Machiavelli is to simply rule well. However if this does not work Machiavelli recommends several different strategies such as the use of violence. During Machiavelli’s time his theories were not widely accepted and because of this he died in shame. Machiavelli acted on his thoughts and beliefs despite what society taught and believed. However once time passed Machiavelli’s philosophies were better understood and accepted. Other philosophers began take portions of his philosophy to add to their own. This brought upon a new respected look to Machiavelli rather than the shameful look he died with.…

    • 439 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Hobbes believed in a social contract, an implicit understanding between government and governed. His ideal government would be an absolute monarchy that holds power like a leviathan, a sea monster. John Locke, also an English philosopher, believed that people…

    • 239 Words
    • 1 Page
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Hobbes Vs Machiavelli

    • 121 Words
    • 1 Page

    Lastly, both Hobbes and Machiavelli agree in their opinion of man what is one that is very negative. In the novel The Prince, Machiavelli states that men are “ungrateful, fickle, deceptive, and deceiving, avoiders of danger, eager to gain” (Machiavelli < 1542 > 2006). Similarly, in the novel Leviathan, Hobbes states how the life of a man is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” (Hobbes < 1651 > 2009). This shows how both Machiavelli and Hobbes see men and their lives as very negative aspects, but differ in what there perspectives are of it. Machiavelli explains how men are unreliable and not worth trusting when Hobbes is explaining how life naturally is terrible and without sovereignty, life and man are nothing.…

    • 121 Words
    • 1 Page
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    In Machiavelli’s The Prince, he tackles of issues in society and the government as a whole. Machiavelli believed a good ruler is one that could give justice and provide some type of order to his citizens. He believed that a good ruler should focus more on the present rather than what could be. Machiavelli used several examples to demonstrate his way of thinking in a humanistic way and running a government. He used the fox and the lion for an example. A good ruler should be able to use cunningness and brute force per situation in which it is called for. Machiavelli believes that there are two ways of fighting something, that is by law or by force and he believed those are…

    • 760 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Machiavelli's philosophy was that "The end justifies the means." This meant that the end result is the most important, and how you got there was of no importance. The Prince was a book of advice to rules on how to found a state and how to stay in power. Machiavelli explained in his book the many different ways to gain power. One way was to acquire land. The four methods that he discusses to acquire more land is: Your own arms and virtue, fortune, others' arms, and inequity. To Machiavelli, the word virtue meant manliness and strength. Machiavelli also advocates the use of evil to achieve any goals. He gives an example of Agathocles of Syracuse as a proof that this works and will enable the prince to rule the land peacefully through fear. "Born of a potter, this one always had an iniquitous life throughout his years: nonetheless, he accomplished his iniquities with such virtue of spirit and of body that, having joined the militia, he rose through its ranks to become praetor of Syracuse. Being established in rank, and having decided to become prince and to keep with violence and without obligation to others what had been conceded him by agreement... ...one morning he convened the people and the senate of Syracuse, as if he had had to deliberate things pertinent to the republic; and at a preordained nod…

    • 1540 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Better Essays

    Hobbes vs Locke

    • 1466 Words
    • 6 Pages

    The men shared a difference in opinion regarding the purpose of government that was needed to rule a civil society. Thomas Hobbes believed that the…

    • 1466 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Better Essays

    Machiavelli believed in the idea of a strong leader. The leader should be feared more than he is loved, if he is even loved at all. A leader shouldn 't be hated, a hated leader will be rebelled and possibly killed, but a leader can not be loved at all. He believes that if a leader is loved, he wouldn 't be feared and no one will listen to him or what he wants to do. Machiavelli believed that war was needed and a nation should keep a strong military at all times. War shouldn 't be high on taxes though, because taxes have a possibility to cause a rebellion. A rebellion is an act of hatred and could possibly lead to death of the…

    • 1162 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    In his book The Prince, Machiavelli presents a theory asserting that man needs a powerful leader in order to be successful. Machiavelli felt that a Prince must act in a way that guaranteed stability and order. However, his emphasis on political convenience was not in the service of the individual power of a Prince, but in allowing that Prince to do what was necessary for the sake of the people. He argues that as a leader, one has the duty to be dishonest or otherwise deceive its people in times of need. This is further clarified when he addresses the question of whether it is better to be feared or loved.…

    • 841 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Hobbes VS Locke

    • 273 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Thomas Hobbes and John Locke both had very different views on society and government. For Locke, natural rights could co-exist within a civil society and that natural rights and civil society were not mutually exclusive categories. While Hobbes thinks that the absolute power of the sovereign is simply the price mankind must pay for peace, Locke believes that absolute power is never a remedy for the state of nature. Hobbes and Locke also greatly differed in their opinions on the role of the state in society. Locke believed that government had obligations to fulfill, but not rights, and “cannot do as it pleases”. He saw necessary a separation of powers to protect the individual rights of the people, and if these rights were infringed or trust was violated, “people have the right to alter or abolish the government. These views were directly opposite to Hobbes. Hobbes was in favor of the opinion that the people have formed the government for peace and security, and that in return, people should not be allowed to change, judge, or protest against their government. He thought that an absence of government could lead to possibility of violent death, and therefore “government should never give up its power”.…

    • 273 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Both of the philosophers had very differing views on mankind and equality. There were three main points in Hobbes’ argument about mankind. The first was that man is naturally vain and selfish. The second point always made was that people are moved by two emotions: the desire of power and the fear of death. The third point that was commonly presented is that each man is ultimately equal in that any man can kill, or be killed by another man. There were also three main points in Locke’s argument about mankind. The first point was that knowledge humans obtain is done so by observations and experiments, rather than theory. The second point was that any immoral behavior from an individual was the product of the environment in which the individual lived. The third point was that people have natural rights…

    • 914 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays

Related Topics