Machiavelli Vs Hobbes Analysis

1081 Words5 Pages
Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes both recognized during their lives that they lived in an imperfect world and had similar ideas about how to prevent their society from becoming disarray. Both great thinkers agree that men need a power structure in place, so that men 's ambition do not become too great and plunge society into chaos. Machiavelli 's The Prince approaches this issue from a practical worldview, as Machiavelli was a seasoned politician in the city-state of Florence and authored his work so rulers can retain their power in society. He uses his personal experiences in politics in order to convey that people are flawed in their thinking and "for many have pictured republics and principalities which in fact have never been known or seen, because how one lives is so far distant from how one ought to live" (Machiavelli 406). A single man thinks that he knows what is best for society, but in reality, has a warped and selfish perception of the world.
…show more content…
In his work, Machiavelli asked the now famous question of "whether it be better to be loved than feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, it is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with" (Machiavelli 409). He proposed in his writing that if all men were good, there would be no need for these tactics, but since this is not the case, violence and fear is a necessary evil. This comes back to the main synopsis of Machiavelli 's work that is the ends justify the means. A ruler may want to be favorable among his subjects and be considered a good ruler, but at maintaining power and peace in the kingdom is top priority. When no leadership in a nation is present, men 's natural inclinations rears its ugly head, resulting in more
Open Document