Machiavelli's Rejection Of Natural Law

Improved Essays
Hobbes refutes Machiavelli’s arguments concerning an ideal prince by arguing against Machiavelli’s rejection of natural law, his subsequent alteration of justice, and his misapplication of the good life. Hobbes begins by refuting Machiavelli’s rejection of natural law. While both men cite the nature of man as violent whether in acquisition through force, or a standing disposition of war, Hobbes argues that this bent of men stands in opposition to natural law. While men remain independent sovereigns forever entangled in war, “nothing can be unjust. The notions of right and wrong, justice and injustice, have there no place,” In war, every man has a right to everything, thus destroying any hope of security. However, Hobbes proposes that all …show more content…
Hobbes ascribes the immutability of natural law to the existence of justice. While men live outside the social contract, nothing can be unjust, because they ignore natural laws. When men live inside the social contract, they live in accordance with natural laws. Machiavelli’s insistence that men should always conquer, because it is a natural thing leaves no room for natural law. Machiavelli’s rejection of natural law destroys the foundation for justice. He blurs the lines between vice and virtue, first by mixing the order when discussing them, and next by instructing his prince that some virtues are in fact vices. He assures his prince, “if one considers everything well, one will find something appears to be virtue, which if pursued would be one’s ruin,”. This decimation of the distinction between virtues and vices destroys the foundations of Aristotle’s ethics and politics, which in turn destroys the pursuit of the good. Without clear and distinct virtues and vices, justice remains inscrutable and good …show more content…
Men enter into communities to attain peace. This peace allows for the pursuit of individual good and for protection. Unlike Machiavelli, Hobbes asserts that, “all men agree…that peace is good, and therefore also the way or means of peace, which…are justice, gratitude, modesty, equity, and mercy.” The pursuit of peace rests upon the foundation of justice. Justice clearly divides between vice and virtue, “…the laws of nature are good; that is to say, moral virtue; and their contrary, vices, evil,”. Without moral distinctions, Machiavelli’s prince morphs into a terrifying facade of virtue. Machiavelli encourages his prince to guild himself in the dressing of virtue, but not the actual virtues themselves. He insists that, “it is not necessary for a prince to have all the above-mentioned qualities in fact, but it is indeed necessary to appear to have them,”. This farce, this mockery of justice and virtue, is the highest form of injustice of which Cicero speaks. He resolutely asserts that “ taking all forms of injustice into account, none is more deadly than that practiced by people who act as if they are good men when they are being most treacherous,”. Machiavelli’s rejection of natural law destroys any hope for justice. He obliterates the telos of society, which is the pursuit of justice and the common good. Hobbes rejects this disregard for natural law, thus saving the telos of society. However, Machiavelli’s deception exceeds

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    Niccolò Machiavelli spent a large majority of his aristocratic platform defaming the many intrinsic characteristics of human emotion and experience. He consciously ignored the essential acts of care and compassion while promoting a message of fear and hate. His teachings offered detailed instructions on the succession and maintenance of a fear-abiding society encapsulated by submission. His philosophy stated that the best interest of the general public was to irrefutably follow the rule of law. To Machiavelli, a human life could be explained as an expendable resource, awaiting its designated task to serve the ruling class.…

    • 904 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Although Machiavelli and Socrates both lived during times of uncertainty, political fragmentation and violence, their philosophies about how the state should conduct itself are in direct contrast with one another. Machiavelli’s the Prince is founded on the principal that if a ruler wishes to maintain power, he should embody the ideology of pragmatism, while Socrates believes the state should follow him in his commitment to moral purity and justice. The inherent dissonance between these philosophies would lead Socrates to be unsupportive of Machiavelli’s concept of a prince, and consequently the political system Machiavelli would recommend he install, despite his apparent change in rhetoric from the Apology to the Crito. Throughout Plato’s interpretation…

    • 1488 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Plato’s Republic and Machiavelli’s The Prince depict their views of both the duties and the ideal personas that rulers should strive towards. Socrates, in Republic, strives to discover truth in the creation of a hypothetical “perfect city,” in which all citizens are just and fair to each other. His Philosopher King was designed to rule this ideal city, and as such this is a perfect and ideal figure. Having been educated only in the just for his whole life, this Philosopher King is always virtuous, and relies purely on this virtue to be a good ruler for his people.…

    • 1713 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    “The lion cannot protect himself from traps, and the fox cannot defend himself from wolves. One must therefore be a fox to recognize traps, and a lion to frighten wolves.” Machiavelli uses this analogy as an attempt to teach the masses how to embrace their human significance. Machiavelli wrote The Prince at a time where there was political unrest and confusion in Italy, which is why it can be interpreted in many different ways, such as a political satire or epilogue of his political views; however, while the content may be confusing the true meaning of The Prince is to be understood as a satire. Machiavelli is continuously sarcastic through out the course of the novel about the government standings and the changing world.…

    • 1412 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    Plato and Machiavelli disagree about the circumstances which justify a lie. Plato believes that political leaders must lie if that is necessary to pursue justice and thereby lead the city well. Machiavelli also believes that lying is a method of establishing political order but, unlike Plato, believes that lying should be used as a method to maintain power for power’s sake – not for some greater purpose. Although in most circumstances Machiavelli and Plato disagree, occasionally, they agree. For example, they may agree to lie to the philosopher kings about the marriage lottery system in certain cases.…

    • 2022 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    In many political philosopher’s eyes, there is a special relationship between the ideas of moral goodness and legitimate authority. Some of these political philosophers believed that the use of political power was only morally correct if it was exercised under a ruler who had virtuous morals. These rulers who had virtuous morals were then told that in order to be successful, they needed to make decisions in accordance with the standards of ethical goodness. This moralistic view of authority is what Machiavelli criticizes in his work “The Prince.” In Machiavelli’s book, “The Prince,” the readers are introduced to political values that do not necessarily give full recognition to morality or religion.…

    • 933 Words
    • 4 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
  • Superior Essays

    Niccolo Machiavelli and The Prince Introduction Niccolo Machiavelli is a famous statesman, thinker and one of the founders of modern political science. He was born in the year 1469 at Florence. That is the age of political chaos. The whole country was separated to city governments。In this case, he wrote his masterpiece, The Price, which to be as much praised as blamed. Machiavelli used terse and forceful words elaborate his argument, which had a profound influence in history.…

    • 1199 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    look at John Locke and Niccole Machiavelli John Locke and Niccole Machiavelli are two philosophers from the Renaissance period, who focused their work on creating a better society and government. Their work consists of theories of how rulers should rule their land and how they can get their subjects support. Locke’s Two Treaties of Government of Civil Government, is contrary to Machiavelli’s book The Prince. Whereas, Locke’s book is to justify the revolution of when King James II was removed from power, Machiavelli’s book is about how a ruler should exercise his power and gain control. Machiavelli’s theory is similar to dictatorship and Locke’s theory is the basis for classical liberalism.…

    • 880 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    The fundamental objective of international law, to regulate the relations between sovereign states, has become a standard to evaluating the effectiveness of different approaches to international law. Various philosophical disciplines have interpreted the importance and usefulness of international law in order to establish a better understanding of how international law is to be executed. This paper will take a thorough look at how two different philosophers have explained the concepts and principles that make up international law. Specifically, analyzing how Niccolò Machiavelli and Hugo Grotius present contrasting ideas of the original principles of international law and propose different ways through which international law should be justly…

    • 1263 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The analysis of Machiavelli as an amoralist – someone who disregards common views of what is right and wrong, unconcerned with morality as a whole (as compared to being immoral, and going against them) – is complicated. A traditional view of morality advocates for not doing wrong or harm to others, for altruism, and kindness. Nowhere in his philosophical work The Prince, first published in 1532, does Machiavelli show any regard for this kind of morality. The Prince is a guidebook for the maintenance of power by a prince (the name he gives to any sovereign); Machiavelli’s sole concern is how to stay in power and best exert it to prolong your rule and prosperity. However, this argument can only be made with a traditional, standard view of morality…

    • 977 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    In The Prince, Niccolo Machiavelli’s understanding of virtue and effective rule emphasizes the maintenance of political power and the disregard for morality, differing from the ideology of the classic political philosophers. Machiavelli’s concept of virtue is centered around the glorification of a ruler, facilitated by behavioural traits such as bravery, cleverness, deceptiveness, and ruthlessness. Effective rule requires these attributes, as the successful application of these characteristics towards the acquisition and maintenance of power will allow one to become a powerful leader. Machiavelli first explains the foundations of various principalities, such as hereditary and mixed principalities, as the maintenance of power differs…

    • 806 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Both writers agree on the egoistic nature of mankind that leads to the threat of foreign invasion. For Machiavelli, external conflict arises from a proletariat which desires excess and invades neighboring cities. For Hobbes, all conflict comes from mutual desire for the same object, a constant phenomenon across all people. Because these conflicts, regardless of the source, hinder one’s ability for success or potentially survival, mankind’s desire for security in either schema will propel the surrender of some absolute freedom in order to form a larger community, safe from foreign invaders. Despite the similarity between Machiavelli and Hobbes’ respective models of human nature and their reasons for state formation, the subtle difference in mankind’s fundamental goals leads to striking differences in their views of conflict and therefore different frameworks of governance to ensure internal stability and external…

    • 1255 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Growing up in such a tumultuous era allowed Niccolò Machiavelli to examine many cases of the rise and subsequent fall of short-lived governments as well as their causes, such as constantly changing alliances. These experiences led to a cynical view of human nature along with a clear understanding of the objectionable behavior necessary to retain power in politics. His career as a politician and diplomat cemented his very pragmatic stance on human nature and the nature of politics, both of which are described throughout The Prince. Unlike fellow philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle, who preferred to hypothesize based on ideals, Machiavelli held the contentious belief that a separation between politics and moral philosophy was the necessary…

    • 1149 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    Hobbes wants the society to work together meaning giving some rights up in exchange for protection. “This equality of ability produces equality of hope for the attaining of our goals” (Thomas Hobbes). For example, if two people want something they both can’t enjoy or use then they quickly become enemies. Hobbes view, “A law of nature is a command or general rule, discovered by reason, which forbids a man to do anything that is destructive of his life or takes away his means for preserving his life, and forbids him to omit anything by which he thinks his life can best be preserved” (Leviathan, Chapter 14). Those who debate this subject often mistake right and law to be the same yet they ought to be distinguished.…

    • 1796 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Great Essays