Abstract This paper examines how Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527) and Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) can be assessed as theorists influenced by direct exposure to politicalfailure and its resulting chaos. It looks as how Machiavelli suggested that the prince was a person who knew he could not have something for nothing, whereas Hobbes was inclined to place the citizen in similar shoes, needing to adjust to a directed social order aware that without small compromises, he would lose the order so needed and wanted to achieve his ambitions. The paper concludes that in the early 21st century, there is much in international political life to remind us of Machiavelli's "The Prince" and Hobbes' "The Leviathan" in different demonstrations of both leadership and politicalfailure and how war, anarchy, alienation and social chaos do seem the prices of poor leadership approaches and the failure to provide what is needed.
Outline:
Introduction
Machiavelli on PoliticalFailure Hobbes on PoliticalFailure Lessons of being a Bad Leader, or a Bad Subject
Concluding Remarks
From the Paper "Both Machiavelli and Hobbes had few illusions about human nature and the difficulties of governance. Machiavelli saw political failure as owing directly to the nature of the leader and whether or not he was a prince, in a person astute and evolved enough to wield power, and as Hobbes agreed in places but also expected subjects to understand that beyond a symbolic leader they needed to see their own culpability when political systems fell to pieces, that they were merely parts of the same organic social machine. Political failure meant that one party of another was not complying as necessary to make the machine function and that this should be recognized. In other words, whatever kind of leader or ruler was produced, human unwillingness to put cooperation ahead of competition and greed, or a failure to respect the law towards other anarchy would bring political failure's result in the anarchy of which human beings were also much afraid. "
Abstract This paper discusses the causes and consequences of politicalfailure for Thomas Hobbes and Niccolo Machiavelli. It shows how the causes for each of their politicalfailure were different, as reflected in their views of man and in the actions of men within their respective forms of government. The paper presents both Hobbes' and Machiavelli's views and then compares the results of their politicalfailure.
From the Paper "Hobbes favors an authoritarian government where the welfare of the people is assured by the paternal care of the Sovereign because it would make no sense that a Sovereign should oppress his people. The consequences of political failure are to plunge men back into the chaos of the state of nature, the "Warre of everyone against everyone, in which case everyone is governed by his own reason" (Lev., ch. 14, p. 64). Only when men subjugate themselves and their reason to the Reason of the Sovereign does the Power of the Sovereign ensure "peace and commodious living". It is in this way that "we make the commonwealth ourselves" (Six Lessons, Ep. Ded., p. 184)."
Abstract In this article, the writer notes that the 17th century British political philosopher Thomas Hobbes presented in his Leviathan a theory of justice and political order based on reason. The writer then points out that in the course of his argument, Hobbes creates the figure of the Fool who contradicts Hobbes' theory of justice and social order and advocates in its place a view of society based upon the selfish pursuit of individual advantage. The writer discusses that while Hobbes' Fool is a rhetorical device designed to better allow Hobbes to present his arguments, many of the views Hobbes' attributes to this Fool, resemble those of the Renaissance Italian political philosopher Machiavelli.
From the Paper "The 17th century British political philosopher Thomas Hobbes presented, in his Leviathan, a theory of justice and political order based on reason. In the course of his argument Hobbes creates the figure of the "Fool" who contradicts Hobbes' theory of justice and social order and advocates in its place a view of society based upon the selfish pursuit of individual advantage. While Hobbes' Fool is a rhetorical device designed to better allow Hobbes to present his arguments, many of the views Hobbes attributes to this Fool resemble those of the Renaissance Italian political philosopher Machiavelli."
Abstract The philosophies of Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau encompass a spectrum of thought on how a state should be governed. This paper discusses how at one end is the cynicism of Machiavelli and, to some extent, Hobbes. Their ideas are countered by the democratic optimism of Locke and Rousseau. It shows how, at the heart of each of these essays is each philosopher's assessment of the fundamental character of people and how much they can be trusted to govern themselves.
From the Paper "Throughout The Prince moral codes seem irrelevant to the business of running a state. The survival of the sovereign is the highest priority. At times Machiavelli seems to be writing guidelines for tyrants. According to him, a prince is safer if he is feared rather than loved. It is easier, Machiavelli maintains, for people to offend, or betray, someone they love than someone they fear. How is that fear instilled? ?Fear is maintained by a dread of punishment which never fails.? ( Santoni 120 ).
In Leviathan , Hobbes, like Machiavelli, stresses the importance of a powerful sovereign, however his philosophy of government seems less tyrannical than that of Machiavelli. ?During the time when men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war, and such a war as is of every man against every man.? (Santoni 143)."
Abstract This paper examines the potential link between the philosophies of Hobbes, Machiavelli and the Ancient Greeks. It looks at how the form of "democracy" we ascribe to the ancient Greeks was no more a democracy than we have anywhere in the world today. It evaluates how in the eras separating Plato from Hobbes, human nature has not really changed a great detail in the hope of finding a better destiny and how man is still reaching for a form of equality especially in politics. In particular, it analyzes the political beliefs of Hobbes and Machiavelli.
From the Paper "Hobbes, for some reason, feels that there is more equality among men, both physically and intellectually. He sees ?infallible rules, called Science. . .as being not a native faculty, born with us. . .I find yet a greater equality amongst men, than that of strength" (Hobbes, 1985, p. 183). It is interesting that in the middle of the Seventeenth century, Hobbes would find that there seems to be more equality in terms of reason or intellect than in strength. But, what he seems to be really getting at is that there is an equality of ability, not necessarily of fulfilling that intellectual ability."
Abstract The paper discusses Hobbes' ideas of leadership as the means to a good society by manipulating or instilling fear and Machiavelli's emphasis on how a ruler should appeal to human nature in creating order. The paper explains how both theorists believed that the natural state of affairs without leadership was bound to be chaos. The paper discusses how Hobbes saw political violence as a clear sign of a social order falling back into the natural state of chaos, just as Machiavelli perceived this violence as a sign of a ruler having failed to do what was required to preserve and protect a social order.
Outline:
Introduction
Machiavelli on the Ruler
The Good Society
Conclusion
From the Paper "Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527) and Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) knew turbulent times. Machiavelli experienced the 1498 French invasion of Florence and the flight of the Medici family, and Hobbes's views owed to the very violent English Civil War, his The Leviathan's ideas said to have been achieved by the War's time in the human personality as motivated by fear. This influenced his ideas of leadership as the means to a good society by manipulating or instilling fear. Machiavelli shared an emphasis on how a ruler should appeal to human nature in creating order. The natural state of affairs without leadership was bound to be chaos."
Tags:political, violence, social, order, chaos, ruler, power, government
Abstract This paper explains that Machiavelli lived during the Renaissance, nearly 150 years earlier than Thomas Hobbes, yet it was he who envisioned the basis for the political pragmatism of the twentieth century; while Thomas Hobbes, who lived in the 16th century, was a political materialist in the classical tradition of Plato and Galileo. The author stresses that Machiavellianism, as a term, has been used to describe the principles of power politics and the type of person who uses those principles in political or personal life is frequently described as a Machiavellian. The paper includes a comparison of the Table of Contents of "De Cive" by Thomas Hobbes and of "The Prince" by Machiavelli to demonstrate that Hobbes is looking for a universal law of politic; whereas, Machiavelli is looking for a practical means of surviving real politics. Several very long quotes.
From the Paper "For Machiavelli, historical change has two forms: (1) the motion of nature and, (2) the order or ordering that man intends. Nature's changes are unreliable; they can be good or bad, but man does not feel safe or grateful. Machiavelli lumps unreliable nature with fickle fortune as the first element of his view of the opposing forces of history. Human order, or as Machiavelli describes it, "orders and modes" (Preface), is devised by human virtu to overcome this sense of being at the mercy of nature or fortune and is the second element of the equation. Simply put, his context of history is a contest between virtu and fortuna. Machiavelli is not a mere observer of this contest. As a humanist historian, he bases his advice, or lessons if you will, on the contest. But unlike the other historians of his day, he does not teach the lesson by what was done, but rather by what should have been done. This clearly places Histories in the political instead of historical genre by modern standards."
Abstract This political study analyzes the major ethical and moral foundations for governing that reside in the philosophy of Thomas Hobbes, Aristotle, and Machiavelli. By understanding the premise of an ethical government in Aristotle's point view, the writer shows that the basis for a republican ethical and morality systems are a function of good political structures in government. However, the writer points out that Thomas Hobbes and Machiavelli disagree with this point of view, finding that self-preservation for elites is the foundation of most governing bodies through the reality of human nature. Further, the writer notes that aside from the dogmatic philosophy of Aristotle that seeks to propose ethical standards in government, both Hobbes and Machiavelli are realists in their understanding of human nature and the often-cruel conflicts that reside within the quest for power.
From the Paper "... the critical philosophical premise to human nature that ultimately helps one realize how persons that attain power utilize it not for the greater good, but for the self-preservation of the person that is not satisfied with their own portion of power. In this manner, Hobbes provides the deeper insight into governing bodies and how they function, since it is often the issue of self-preservation that often dictates government, whether it be called republican, monarchy, etc., and that power forces men to abide by constitutions and rules only for their own greater personal success. "
Abstract This paper will examine the political philosophies of Machiavelli and Hobbes in application to the question of the use and abuse of power in "Gladiator". It will be seen that Machiavelli and Hobbes would agree that the insane villain, Emperor Commodus, was actually an insightful political leader. While the movie collapses the distinction between the personal and the political - with the whining, incestuous Commodus contrasted unfavourably with the "family values" of Maximus - neither Machiavelli nor Hobbes considered personal morality of any significance in the arena of political life.
Abstract This paper examines, compares and contrasts the theories of Thomas Hobbes and Niccolo Machiavelli regarding man and politics. The paper focuses on Machiavelli's formulation of human nature, virtue and politics. Then the paper looks at Hobbes' dissatisfaction with Machiavellian political theory.
From the Paper "Two of the best known modern philosophers who have taken up questions regarding man and politics or man and his life in civil society are Niccolo Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes. Machiavelli writing almost ...."
Abstract This paper analyzes and discusses the theories of both Niccolo Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes in an effort to better understand political theory. The paper uses and explains direct quotes.
Outline:
Abstract
Machiavelli's and Hobbes' Perceptions of the Ruler
Political Philosophies of Machiavelli and Hobbes Conclusion
From the Paper "Hobbes stands in contrast to Machiavelli, at least on the surface, in terms of his theories on who should rule the state. Whereas Machiavelli advocates the ideas of absolute power, submission among subjects, and the gaining of authority through a display of force, Hobbes seems to be more attuned to the ideas of the nature of man to be essentially free, and the ruling of the state by a democratic type of a body, rather than a solitary dictator or despot. For example, one can consider the following quote from Hobbes: "The right of nature... is the liberty each man hath to use his own power, as he will himself, for the preservation of his own nature; that is to say, of his own life." (Harrison, 2003, p. 67). In other words, Hobbes is saying that every person has within them certain rights, yearnings and liberties; as such, the individual is entitled, and indeed should, pursue their own interests and not be oppressed by rulers. Likewise, rulers should not attempt to force subjects into submission or to rule by intimidation or fear- for Hobbes, power must be earned and maintained through a level of fairness (Rogers, et al, 2000). Within this scope, the ruler should be motivated, in Hobbes' opinion, by serving the interests of the people over whom they govern. Likewise, the citizens would be involved in the political process, and the ruler, having earned the right to rule, would have the duty to effectively lead with conscience rather than sheer force."
Tags: state-, authority, power, chaos, force, politics, political
Questions whether Thomas Hobbes and Niccolo Machiavelli agreed or disagreed on the foundations of good government through their works "Leviathan" and "The Prince".
Abstract The beginning of the paper talks about the foundations of modern political theory and how much of our understanding evolved from the work of these two authors, Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes, two of the earliest political theorists. The paper takes key arguments from both authors through their texts, "Leviathan" by Hobbes and "The Prince" by Machiavelli, on their views of human nature and how best to resolve the issues that arise from each of the works. Both arrive at the conclusion to allow the existence of an absolute monarch because, ultimately, his arbitrary rule benefits us.
From the Paper "The ideas of good government and stability resonate throughout their works, leading us to surmise that both would favor a strong stable government as opposed to a weak or anarchical society. Government exists to protect its citizens from each other, to ensure their survival and prosperity; government regulates men and their interaction and therefore inevitably stabilizes society. Both men differ in their words alone, but the meaning behind those words are the same. Further, these words resonate in political theory today not as they spoke them but as fancy terms such as "Prisoners Dilemma" or "chaos theory", yet their origins come from political theorists long since deceased."
Abstract This paper discusses the conditions on which an interloper can be accepted or rejected by the citizens of a newly captured country. The conditions are based on the philosophical works of Thomas Hobbes and Machiavelli. The paper shows that both Hobbes and Machiavelli believe that it is futile to reject someone off hand because such rejection would only result in waste of energy and nothing else. They feel that there are some important attributes which make a ruler strong and worthy of our respect and thus he should be rejected only if he doesn?t possess the right attributes.
From the Paper "A ruler who is able to command respect whether through the use of force or otherwise need not be rejected because he is likely to prove more beneficial for the country than the weak leader he overthrew. In the light of our current understanding of politics, we may find this argument rather strange in nature. But the truth is that today we do not think in terms of what is good for our country and rather become irrationally sentimental when someone threatens to overthrow our government. We must remember that as long as a ruler is capable of running the country well and is respected by his people, he need not be rejected. In the case of an interloper, we must first study the situation from all possible angles before deciding on our next course of action."
Abstract This paper discusses Machiavelli's political outlooks and specifically the roles of chance and necessity in politics. While necessity is paramount in Machiavelli's political ideology, his life and writings are consistently troubled by the presence of the "supernatural" force of "Fortuna". Although in his writings, especially "The Prince" he attempts to instruct would-be rulers on how to prepare for, accommodate and tame fortune in order to turn it to their advantage, he concedes that the will of the goddess is sometimes unavoidable. However, Machiavelli's works were written during violent times. Times of conflict and instability. His work principally concedes that the world and society is inherently flawed, and he attempts to devise measures and procedures to somewhat remedy the ills that they experienced.Machiavelli received lots of critisicm and stigma because of his profound ideals with with the author agrees.
From the Paper " Almost all commentators on Machiavelli say that his principal innovation, and the essence of this method, was to "divorce politics from ethics". Thereby he broke sharply with the Aristotelian tradition, which had dominated medieval political thought. His method, they grant, freed politics to become more scientific and objective in its study of human behavior; but it was most dangerous because, through it, politics was released from "control" by ethical conceptions of what is right and good."
Abstract The Roman constitution allowed for a great empire to develop and conquer the known world, and this great empire of vast regions was founded as a republic before its rule by emperors. It is that republic that Niccol? Machiavelli explores in his book, "Discourses on Livy". The paper shows that, in this book, Machiavelli discusses his view of the Roman republic based on Livy's history. According to Machiavelli, the book is a critique of Livy's history, but it is much more than just a critique; it presents Machiavelli's view of government. In the "Discourse on Livy", Machiavelli demonstrates his view on the formation of governments, mainly republics, along with some discussion of principalities. In this discussion, he displays and articulates the modern views of government. The paper shows that the evolution in modern political thought starts during this time period, and many claim it begins with Machiavelli. The paper explains that, several centuries later, Jean-Jacques Rousseau continues the evolution of modern political thought with his essay, ?On Social Contract.? In the essay, Rousseau displays a continuation of Machiavelli's political ideas through his description of the Roman constitution. This paper shows that the ideas of both authors are evident in their views on the importance of the founders of republics, those individuals that further republics, the qualities of republics, and the institution of the Tribunal.
From the Paper "This seems to establish that Rousseau supported the control of the government by a wealthy few and did not support conflict, but he also favors the way this power was kept in check. The two ways the voting majority was kept in check was by the "tribunes as well as a consistently large number of plebeians usually belonged the class of the rich, their influence countered balanced that of the patricians in this first class" (159). The second check on power was that "one century was chosen by lot, and it alone proceeded to carry out the elections" (159). That is, the assembly's composition was always changing because the Century Assembly members were chosen not by wealth but simply by chance, so the possibility arose that on important issues, the Assembly was constituted of more members from the other classes than from the wealthy first class."
