Machiavelli and Hobbes on Glory

Paper Summary:

This paper compares these philosophers' theories and shows how in Machiavelli's "The Prince," he breaks away from traditional theories by stating that the ruling Prince should be the sole authority deciding what is best for the state. In his opinion, glory was an important tool in upholding the authority of the state. By contrast, Thomas Hobbes believed that only a very centralized government, with an absolute power, could create social order. However, he did not believe that glory was a useful tool.

From the Paper:

"In Machiavelli's opinion, the existence of the state and the acquisition of power become ends in themselves. If the purpose of an action is to preserve the community and its way of life, then any action is permissible. That action can be war, human experiments, and many other things. Under Machiavelli's system, a reason of state becomes the highest good. A reason of state has precedence over everything else. According to Machiavelli: "It must be understood that a prince cannot observe all those things which are consider good in men, being often obliged, in order to maintain the state, to act against charity, against humanity, and against religion. (p. 38)" Basically, Machiavelli believed that the end justifies the means. To destroy an enemy state, anything is allowed. If the state faces danger, "no considerations of justice, humanity, or cruelty, nor of glory or of shame, should be allowed. (p. 40)" "

More papers on Machiavelli and Hobbes on Glory:

• Analytical Essay # 140214 : "Machiavelli and Hobbes"
• Comparison Essay # 150143 : "Liberty and Ideal Forms of Government in Machiavelli and Hobbes"
• Research Paper # 68788 : "Machiavelli and Hobbes "

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: