Hobbes Vs Machiavelli Essay

Improved Essays
There are numerous parallels between the theories of Hobbes and Machiavelli. These provide strength to both of their arguments but their similar outlook on the relationship between human nature and political structure also provides space for similar questioning. Through the comparison of Machiavelli and Hobbes, the question of the worth of liberty arises. Liberty and security go hand in hand in that security of the populace is necessary before any individual can truly be free. But in order to attain security, individuals must give up countless political rights. What happens when the general perception of what is right goes against that of the sovereign power? The main issue here is that politics cannot be reduced to just an issue of who holds …show more content…
This relates directly back to freedom in Hobbes' concept of motion. Freedom is infringed upon when movement is bound or restricted by an external force. The main question that arises here is what exactly constitutes a restrictive external force. The state of nature is one where preservation of life is impossible and humans by nature want to preserve their lives. Through this line of argument, the choice between joining together in a covenant to form a sovereign power and remaining in the state of nature is a choice between being able to preserve one's life and not being able to. For Hobbes, entering a situation where it is impossible to preserve one's own life is a free choice. Despite the preservation of life being a crucial facet of his understanding of human nature. This is only rational when Hobbes' theory on freedom in motion is viewed without compromise. A choice made in a state of fear or desire to escape danger is still very much a free choice according to Hobbes. The decision to willingly remain in an environment where death is a constant threat is a viable choice to make because, "fear and liberty are consistent" (II. xxi.

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    Hobbes places the sovereign at the apex of all other aspects of life. There must be absolute ruthlessness in capturing, sustaining and enhancing political power by the ruler for Machiavelli. Niccolo Machiavelli’s perspective on government is the superlative choice due…

    • 879 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    According to Hobbes, man’s life in the state of nature was one of fear and selfishness. He believes man natural liberty must be limited because, “all mankind [has] a perpetuall and restlesse desire of Power after power, that ceaseth onely in Death”. Under Hobbes philosophies, a social contract focuses man to surrender all their rights and freedoms to an authority. This authority will then protect the lives and properties of the people. The Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen establishes Hobbes often discussed “natural rights of man [which] are the sole causes of the miseries of the world”.…

    • 1160 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Intro After reading The Leviathan by Hobbes and the Machiavelli’s The Prince and the Discourses I would argue that the two authors have a similar view on how fear is politically relevant. What makes fear relevant to Machiavelli and Hobbes is that they believe that fear is necessary for a sovereign or a prince to stay in power. The two authors also believe that it is needed to keep the subjects in check and to keep them complacent. Today however there are people who question if fear is politically relevant today.…

    • 1077 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Starting off, they each had a distinctive understanding of human nature from one another. To Rousseau, humans in primitive times were "noble savages" and it is "civilization" that turned man into a "beast". Conversely, Hobbes believed that being "civilized" is a positive trait and being uncivilized or a "savage" is bad. Concerning human nature, Rousseau theorized that humans were innately good and generous, before being corrupted by the vices of civilization. Human life was most likely peaceful and compassionate as described in his opening line, “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.”…

    • 1051 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    This is a paper comparing the Aristotle and Hobbes understandings of human nature. Aristotle states that man is a “political animal”, and that it is thus natural for man to live in a polis. Hobbes disagrees with this understanding of man a political animal, as he claims that man is actually a greedy being that is driven by power. Thus he feels that the natural state of man is a state of war. Although the two disagree initially about the man’s natural state, Aristotle comes to agree with Hobbes’ view since they agree that without a common sense of justice that individuals have no reason to live together.…

    • 950 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The differences between the use of freedom or no freedom depends what is more important, safety or living an enlightened life. The limitations the government put on its people needs to be balanced properly from security to ensuring the rights of its citizens. Hobbes’ natural laws provide a tough punishment system while Kant may find a tough punishment is to take away someone’s freedom. Human nature is a strong power in everyone and is always a threat to the rest of society. Kant’s ‘what is enlightenment’ and Hobbes’ rational view on the right to live offer a large spectrum of how social view change in society.…

    • 1567 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    This, the right of execution, is given up to the government in exchange for preservation of the other three natural rights. Hobbes views the state of nature as not a good place. He thinks of it as short and brutal. Weaker people can gain up on the stronger people. This makes everyone feel like they have a chance to get what they want.…

    • 706 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    For example, Hobbes believed the way to initiate and sustain social order and political power was through the development of a social contract, one in which is developed through self-interest; individuals voluntarily decide to relinquish their natural rights and laws and agree to be governed by an all mighty Leviathan ruler, finally becoming subjects of a monarch with the promise of security and prosperity. Machiavelli on the other hand commits to his belief of reputation, laws and arms. Unlike Hobbes Machiavelli suggests the way for a prince to achieve and sustain power is through immoral practices and by military force which will provide him with the opportunity to be feared rather than despised. Although the comparison of Hobbes and Machiavelli’s methods of how to develop and stabilize internal political power has identified specific disagreements the following comparison regarding humanity will demonstrate an agreement between the two…

    • 1601 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The nature of man and the state of nature have varied and contrast immensely throughout different societies. Locke, Hobbes, and Rousseau’s ideas about the state of man clash in the form of politics and social contracts. Locke’s view involves the power residing within the people, and the government is there to protect their property, life, and liberty. Hobbes’ ideas are in favor of a monarchy in order to keep the citizens secure and free from harm. Rousseau’s ideas on the politics shares a collective will amongst the population.…

    • 943 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    No morality exists. Everyone lives in constant fear. Because of this fear, no one is really free. However, in the state of nature everyone has the right to everything because there is no limit to natural rights. His theory that common security should be favored and that a bit of individual liberty should be sacrificed by each person to achieve it is an inaccurate policy. Hobbes believes the contract is a mutual transferring of rights.…

    • 908 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Thomas Hobbes and Niccolo Machiavelli, both grappling with regional instability and constant war, arrive at different frameworks for handling man’s inherent propensity for conflict from very similar models of human behavior. Hobbes, watching his fellow countrymen fight each other during the English Civil War, decided that humans perpetually desire more power to secure their well-being and therefore incline toward warfare as a means to achieve this. Machiavelli, similarly accustomed to the restless Italian Peninsula, also labeled man as power-hungry and self-centered, always striving for enough freedom to ensure one’s prosperity. In the absence of the structure and organization provided by a government, a situation dubbed mankind’s ‘natural…

    • 1255 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    “He accomplished this by depicting the state of nature in horrible terms as a war of all against all, in which life is ‘solitary poor, nasty, brutish short’” (Leviathan, Chapter 13). Hobbes argues that, in order to get rid of the injustice, people had to give their full consent by giving up all their rights to the government so that the government can have full rights over the state of nature. It was set up to make people believe you are doing what is better to keep you in power. The beginning of state of nature meaning war.…

    • 1796 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Great Essays

    Introduction ‘During and after the English Revolution (1642-88), different English thinkers reacted differently toward the revolution, based on their own life experience and philosophical outlook’. Thomas Hobbes and John Locke strongly argued distinct notions of political power. One absolute kinship, the other a democratic republic. In this essay it will firstly state and discuss the relation between state and sovereign according to Thomas Hobbes. In doing so Thomas Hobbes ideas will then be compared to John Locke’s.…

    • 2054 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Without it, Hobbes envisions a world in which there is “war of every man against every man” and exemplified his view of the state of nature as a brutal scenario where the life of man is “nasty, brutish, and short” (Jovanoski, 2014, p.334). Hobbes, being a materialist, mirrors a theory of conservative motion:…

    • 753 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Therefore, it is necessary to leave the state of nature once established the foundation of human life, that is, there's only independent individuals, it is necessary to build a consistent political society with such budgets. To make this work, Hobbes uses the concept of state of nature. He claims the existence of state of nature that are actually laws to achieve peace. natural law contained very basic and obvious moral precepts, of which no one doubted obligation. Instead, Hobbes conceives rather as technical rules that serve to an end, but not oblige because an obligation has to have some unconditioned…

    • 469 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays