Hobbes Vs Machiavelli Analysis

1140 Words5 Pages

Among the famous philosophers and political theorists, both Niccolò Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes find recognition as the brightest representatives of their eras. It might be said that Machiavelli started a new phase in the development of political science shifting from the ancient idealistic approach to politics to the realistic approach of the modernity. In his work The Prince, the author develops an argument concerning the immorality of the politics and the political power while focusing on the image of a successful ruler. In contrast to this, Hobbes is concerned about the need for establishing of the social order and, in his Leviathan, he explains this idea through the theory of social contract between the people and the government. While …show more content…

While Hobbes also states that the human nature does not allow for the people to live in peace and to pursue common goals since “here are very many that think themselves wiser and abler to govern the public better than the rest” (Hobbes 3). respectively, there always exists the notion of competition, and if there is no possibility to reach consensus over the issue, there is the need for establishing an authority. This is the reflection of the social contract idea in the work by Hobbes as far as the author is concerned that only through common action and goals the society is able to function without problems and conflicts. Nevertheless, even though, in contrast to Machiavelli, Hobbes suggests the way of getting power that is based on agreement rather than on power and intellectual games, their ideas regarding the need for a strong ruler who would be able to establish the order in the society is rather similar, even though in one case this task is taken by a person himself and in the other case delivered by the …show more content…

The Prince and Leviathan both show the extent to which the political power depends on the weaknesses of the people. At the same time, sharing similarities in terms of approach to the problem and the basis for its observation, the works are devoted to rather different aspects. Machiavelli focuses more on the ruler and his ability to govern or get power through the immorality or terror while pursuing his own desire for getting power or keeping it. In contrast, Hobbes shows that the immorality and disorder within the society are a result of lacking the power and could be eliminated by the social contract delivering the governance the ability to make other people conform to the existing social rules. In any case, the political ideas of Machiavelli and Hobbes are, to some extent, of the same origin and, therefore, achieve similar results in terms of defining the authority and its principles while achieving those results is rather different

Show More
Open Document