Nonetheless, there are basic principles that are shared by either. Consider what Hobbes had described in his work about the Leviathan. “...but if there be a common power set over them both, with right and force sufficient to compel performance, it is not void.” (Hobbes 100). In his work he describes an organization that must be in place in order to prevent the unavoidable result of everyone going to war with one another. While this is more of a forced ruling to make everyone abide by the same rules, it will perform its duty all the same.
He thinks that the concept of liberty is, in fact, not compatible with that of peace: peace corresponds to a perpetual research of predominance and so it has to be taken away. In conclusion, having considered both Machiavelli and Hobbes’ analysis and thoughts about the concept of liberty, they can be said to be one the opposite of the other. However, it would be interesting to see what both Machiavelli and Hobbes would argue about the limits that this individual liberty has. As John Stuart Mill states, “The liberty of the individual must be thus far limited; he must not make himself a nuisance to other people. But if he refrains from molesting others in what concerns them, and merely acts according to his own inclination and judgment in things which concern himself, the same reasons which show that opinion should be free, prove also that he should be allowed, without molestation, to carry his opinions into practice at his own cost.” A man could enjoy his liberty of action and expression following his own instincts and appetites as long as it does not affect negatively the liberty of others.
However, Thomas Hobbes, as he writes in Leviathan (1651) believed that all political phenomenons could be reported systematically as he equated all humans to machines, predictable by consistently acting in their self interest. [PG 3] Burke’s criticism that can be applied to Hobbes lies on three fronts; that the understanding human condition cannot be derived through logic; that consent, explicit or tacit, does not exist after the first social contract; and that a rebellion is neither possible nor effective when in a social contract. Thomas Hobbes’ prefaces his discussion of the social contract by giving credence to what he understood as science. Hobbes’ approach hinges on this understanding. “[R]eason
Secondly, Hobbes states that man leaves his state of non-governance for the desire of more ordered and secure environment. Thirdly, Hobbes describes that when a person enters a social contract, the social contrast is between the people and they use their power to choose a ruler. Fourthly and most importantly, the people give up their power to a supreme ruler for security and order.
Building on the previous point made about his perception of human passions being the main tool in the decision making process, Hobbes argues that individuals’ decision to enter society and ensure security is based on the ultimate aversion. It is more predominant than the ultimate appetite, so the fear of death is greater than the greed for power and a social contract is made where all men lose some of their individual power and submit their rights to the sovereign who therefore has the ultimate power in the society. This vast amount of power given to him by the people is very effective in making laws by which he doesn’t abide. In a society, everyone has to only obey and fear the sovereign now, which provides security to the people by protecting them from each other and creating a sense of trust among them. Since all decisions are made by one sovereign, this kind of structure enables immediate decision making and resembles an absolute monarchy, the most effective government regime according to
Other philosophers like Thomas Hobbes, Voltaire, Montesquieu, and Rousseau impacted founders like George Washington and James Madison who have positively affected this country in many different ways. One of the many philosophers was a European man, named John Locke. One of his theories in his
Socrates defiance of the structure and order of Athens at the time inspired other Philosophers to create ideas about government and authority such as Niccolò Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes. Machiavelli was an Italian philosopher during the Renaissance that wrote The Prince as a guide to the Governor of Florence, Lorenzo De Medici who needed to regain control and power. Thomas Hobbes, a British philosopher, wrote the famous Leviathan during the English Civil war. The current political state of England is reflected in his work and his seen through the way Hobbes perceives humans. These philosophers have taken the earliest ideas of Socrates and transformed them into their own works about achieving and sustaining power, constructing political authority and natural human behavior.
Thomas Hobbes in his Leviathan and Jean-Jacques Rousseau in his Discourse on Inequality and Social Contract each attempt to explain the rise of and prescribe the proper management of human society. At the foundation of both philosophies is the principle that humans are asocial by nature, a precept each philosopher interprets and approaches in a different way. Hobbes states that nature made humans relatively “equal,” and that “every man is enemy to every man.” Life is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short,” he says, and “every man has right to everything.” Rousseau outlines primitive asocial man having “everything necessary for him to live in the state of nature” from “instinct alone,” and being “neither good nor evil.” In contrast to Hobbes, who argues social bonds form to regulate human nature, Rousseau argues that the formation of the civil state results from and in a “change in man,” that humans must of necessity be denatured in the process of forming society. There are similarities between the two’s philosophies, but it is Rousseau, through his arguments that human nature can be changed, who articulates a political vision more consistent with the claim that humans are asocial by nature. In the beginning, the arguments of both Hobbes and Rousseau are similar.
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.
I am going to choose Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, they were both English philosophers. They had ideas that were similar and then they had their own views on things. They both agreed that a state needs a government, and that people have rights. They also agreed that everyone should have equal rights. Hobbes believed that one person should run the government, as a ruler holds all the power, whereas Locke believed a group of people should run the government.