Comparing Machiavelli, Hobbes, And John Locke
The main concerns in the works of Plato and Aristotle was understanding and knowing virtue and justice, and deciding who had the best qualities to lead. In both hands, the political community at large and how morals and politics intertwined were the concerns of Plato and Aristotle. Nicolo Mchiavelli, Thomas Hobbes, and John Lock challenge this assumption to a certain point, and familiarize their concerns about good government, order, and human nature. While many have argued that Machiavelli, Hobbes, and Locke are clearly distinguished from the ancient thinkers, this paper will argue that some of the ideas of Plato and Aristotle continued so for modern theorists. Primarily, this paper will recap the influences of Machiavelli, Hobbes, and Locke.
…show more content…
Second, this paper will shed light on the differences between these thinkers. Lastly, this paper will investigate the connections between the ancient thinkers and the modern thinkers.
Machiavelli is normally viewed as a midway figure between ancient and modern thinkers. However, unlike the ancient thinkers, Machiavelli was not worried that government should be lifted to a “living moral force, capable of inspiring the people” (Machiavelli xvii). The Prince places more stress on order than virtue, and so morality could be viewed as distant. Machiavelli’s writing is often characterized as “realistic” because it saw the world for what it was not for what I should be as many ancient thinkers tried to create. Machiavelli also hands out status to the role of war and violence in his work. Machiavelli’s was wise in governing, but also skilled handling war.
Thomas Hobbes’ The Leviathan is likewise worried with the state of war and the need to keep the order. Similar to Machiavelli, Hobbes knows humans to be rational figures who have self-interest and calculating. Hobbes’ understanding of the political community is not rooted in moral virtue. In fact, Hobbes’ does not place judgment on man’s virtue at all. “The desires, and other passions of man, are in themselves no sin,” Hobbes wrote, “…no more are the actions that proceed from those passions” (Hobbes 187). For Hobbes, men are equal, even though they have different characteristics, each live under the same constraints and fears (Hobbes 183). Hobbes’ distinctively understood the nature of mankind and he called it “nasty, brutish and short” (Hobbes 186). This caused man to search for the Commonwealth for protection from war, harm, and death. The Commonwealth is operational as long as it continues to protect mankind. Different from Machiavelli, Hobbes does not tinker with the mechanisms, which make for efficient governing. Hobbes’ work covers more the social contract between man and the sovereign. In social contract theory, people give up their freedom to the sovereign so that the state may protect them. Now, the sovereign is compelled to keep the peace.
John Locke’s Political Writings is commonly viewed as a comeback to Hobbes’ Leviathan.
Locke and Hobbes both cover man in the state nature. They both agree that the laws of nature force man to consider one another equally, at least in terms of their life and possessions (Locke 5). Although, unlike Hobbes, Locke seemed less concerned that man would always be in war without a sovereign. Locke’s work also reads less cynically than Hobbes or Machiavelli’s work. While Locke agrees that men are born with liberty, the agency he gives to man is more vigorous than Hobbes understanding of mankind (Locke 4). One can get the impression that mankind is stuck between choosing the sovereign or suffering. Consensually, man chooses the sovereign, and man does this out of fear for his life. Locke is different than Machiavelli, because Machiavelli had no problems with hereditary rule, and Locke asserted that there were ten other men who could do the job with the same skill and wisdom. Even though the government’s job is to maintain order, stability, and provide protection, Locke’s work stresses that government also exists to protect the “life, liberty, and property” (Locke …show more content…
71).
Machiavelli, Hobbes, and Locke were thought to be the “modern break” with the ancient thinkers.
The modern thinkers made several contributions to philosophy. First, the modern thinkers deal with man as he is and not how men ought to be. Second, the modern thinkers were the first to delve into individualism and accord in political life. Hobbes and Locke explore why people pursue government in the first place, even though Machiavelli does not cover this subject as much. This is considered to be the social contract theory, because citizens consent to be governed. Lastly, the modern thinkers’ biggest impact and difference from the ancients was their insistence that men were born
equal.
The modern thinkers shared with the ancient thinkers more than ideas than most give them credit for. Machiavelli links the divide between ancient and modern. Similar to Plato, Machiavelli agreed that some were more suited than others to lead. As Machiavelli argued, “a wise man ought always to follow the paths beaten by great men” (Machiavelli 41). Furthermore, Machiavelli noticed that only wise princes could redress the evils and grievances that arise when governing (Machiavelli 22). Machiavelli also thought that features of governing resemble when Plato called the “noble lie.” In the Republic, Plato nudged for the Guardians to defend the Gods and a class of tales which would serve as the basis for order. It was not a factor that these tales told the truth, just as long as people believed them (Plato 62). Similarly, Machiavelli’s five qualities that made up a good prince did not always have to be followed. It was only necessary that the prince “appear to have them” (Machiavelli 139). Like Aristotle, Machiavelli thought that good laws were vital to a well operating regime. “The chief foundations of all states, new as well as old…are good laws,” wrote Machiavelli. (Machiavelli 93). Aristotle agreed that good laws can teach the people and keep the government stable (Aristotle 110).
Hobbes’ Leviathan appears to oppose Plato and Aristotle, especially his insistence that man looks out for his self interest. As well he gives a lonely state of affairs. But a different picture can be relayed when taking a closer look a Hobbes’ work. Many of Hobbes’ Law of Nature are worried with aspects of right and wrong and even morality. Hobbes suggests that those in the state of nature treat others as they would like to be treated (Hobbes 214). According to Hobbes’, man should not hate one another, or hold contempt of one another (Hobbes 211). Lastly, Hobbes’ shared the same concern of Plato about order and stability in terms of creating the appropriate political community.
John Locke has some similar views as the ancient thinkers. Locke was very traditional in his choice for stability and order over change like Plato. Locke opposed violence and war. Locke shared similar concern over particular understandings of freedom with Plato and his suspicion with democracy (Plato 193). According to Locke, freedom is not an idea where one can do as he please whenever they feel like, “but freedom of men under government… to have a standing rule to live by” (Locke 15). Locke and Aristotle share the same desires for good law and their concern for good law preventing tyranny. “Wherever law ends, tyranny begins if the law be transgressed to another’s harm” (Locke 114).
Machiavelli, Hobbes, and Locke are commonly considered to be the start of modern philosophy, and each modern thinker marks a change from the ancient forms of government to more liberal side. Machiavelli’s The Prince is a guide for accumulating and keeping power. His work is also a blunt account of how man has self-interest. Hobbes’ The Leviathan is less of a handbook and more of a discussion of the necessity of authority in the sovereign. Hobbes’ work of the state of nature discusses a place that is unsafe and abundant of war. Man depends on the sovereign and uses them to escape the world. His work is not as grim and government surfaces to protect the life, liberty, and people. Locke also opposes the lawlessness and the absent of consent that is present in tyranny. Even though Machiavelli, Hobbes, and Locke are though to be modern thinkers, they all share resemblances with the ancient thinkers. Shockingly, contemporary theorists run into the same problems that ancient and modern thinkers ran into. These problems consisted of order stability, nature, morality, and consent.
Second, this paper will shed light on the differences between these thinkers. Lastly, this paper will investigate the connections between the ancient thinkers and the modern thinkers.
Machiavelli is normally viewed as a midway figure between ancient and modern thinkers. However, unlike the ancient thinkers, Machiavelli was not worried that government should be lifted to a “living moral force, capable of inspiring the people” (Machiavelli xvii). The Prince places more stress on order than virtue, and so morality could be viewed as distant. Machiavelli’s writing is often characterized as “realistic” because it saw the world for what it was not for what I should be as many ancient thinkers tried to create. Machiavelli also hands out status to the role of war and violence in his work. Machiavelli’s was wise in governing, but also skilled handling war.
Thomas Hobbes’ The Leviathan is likewise worried with the state of war and the need to keep the order. Similar to Machiavelli, Hobbes knows humans to be rational figures who have self-interest and calculating. Hobbes’ understanding of the political community is not rooted in moral virtue. In fact, Hobbes’ does not place judgment on man’s virtue at all. “The desires, and other passions of man, are in themselves no sin,” Hobbes wrote, “…no more are the actions that proceed from those passions” (Hobbes 187). For Hobbes, men are equal, even though they have different characteristics, each live under the same constraints and fears (Hobbes 183). Hobbes’ distinctively understood the nature of mankind and he called it “nasty, brutish and short” (Hobbes 186). This caused man to search for the Commonwealth for protection from war, harm, and death. The Commonwealth is operational as long as it continues to protect mankind. Different from Machiavelli, Hobbes does not tinker with the mechanisms, which make for efficient governing. Hobbes’ work covers more the social contract between man and the sovereign. In social contract theory, people give up their freedom to the sovereign so that the state may protect them. Now, the sovereign is compelled to keep the peace.
John Locke’s Political Writings is commonly viewed as a comeback to Hobbes’ Leviathan.
Locke and Hobbes both cover man in the state nature. They both agree that the laws of nature force man to consider one another equally, at least in terms of their life and possessions (Locke 5). Although, unlike Hobbes, Locke seemed less concerned that man would always be in war without a sovereign. Locke’s work also reads less cynically than Hobbes or Machiavelli’s work. While Locke agrees that men are born with liberty, the agency he gives to man is more vigorous than Hobbes understanding of mankind (Locke 4). One can get the impression that mankind is stuck between choosing the sovereign or suffering. Consensually, man chooses the sovereign, and man does this out of fear for his life. Locke is different than Machiavelli, because Machiavelli had no problems with hereditary rule, and Locke asserted that there were ten other men who could do the job with the same skill and wisdom. Even though the government’s job is to maintain order, stability, and provide protection, Locke’s work stresses that government also exists to protect the “life, liberty, and property” (Locke …show more content…
71).
Machiavelli, Hobbes, and Locke were thought to be the “modern break” with the ancient thinkers.
The modern thinkers made several contributions to philosophy. First, the modern thinkers deal with man as he is and not how men ought to be. Second, the modern thinkers were the first to delve into individualism and accord in political life. Hobbes and Locke explore why people pursue government in the first place, even though Machiavelli does not cover this subject as much. This is considered to be the social contract theory, because citizens consent to be governed. Lastly, the modern thinkers’ biggest impact and difference from the ancients was their insistence that men were born
equal.
The modern thinkers shared with the ancient thinkers more than ideas than most give them credit for. Machiavelli links the divide between ancient and modern. Similar to Plato, Machiavelli agreed that some were more suited than others to lead. As Machiavelli argued, “a wise man ought always to follow the paths beaten by great men” (Machiavelli 41). Furthermore, Machiavelli noticed that only wise princes could redress the evils and grievances that arise when governing (Machiavelli 22). Machiavelli also thought that features of governing resemble when Plato called the “noble lie.” In the Republic, Plato nudged for the Guardians to defend the Gods and a class of tales which would serve as the basis for order. It was not a factor that these tales told the truth, just as long as people believed them (Plato 62). Similarly, Machiavelli’s five qualities that made up a good prince did not always have to be followed. It was only necessary that the prince “appear to have them” (Machiavelli 139). Like Aristotle, Machiavelli thought that good laws were vital to a well operating regime. “The chief foundations of all states, new as well as old…are good laws,” wrote Machiavelli. (Machiavelli 93). Aristotle agreed that good laws can teach the people and keep the government stable (Aristotle 110).
Hobbes’ Leviathan appears to oppose Plato and Aristotle, especially his insistence that man looks out for his self interest. As well he gives a lonely state of affairs. But a different picture can be relayed when taking a closer look a Hobbes’ work. Many of Hobbes’ Law of Nature are worried with aspects of right and wrong and even morality. Hobbes suggests that those in the state of nature treat others as they would like to be treated (Hobbes 214). According to Hobbes’, man should not hate one another, or hold contempt of one another (Hobbes 211). Lastly, Hobbes’ shared the same concern of Plato about order and stability in terms of creating the appropriate political community.
John Locke has some similar views as the ancient thinkers. Locke was very traditional in his choice for stability and order over change like Plato. Locke opposed violence and war. Locke shared similar concern over particular understandings of freedom with Plato and his suspicion with democracy (Plato 193). According to Locke, freedom is not an idea where one can do as he please whenever they feel like, “but freedom of men under government… to have a standing rule to live by” (Locke 15). Locke and Aristotle share the same desires for good law and their concern for good law preventing tyranny. “Wherever law ends, tyranny begins if the law be transgressed to another’s harm” (Locke 114).
Machiavelli, Hobbes, and Locke are commonly considered to be the start of modern philosophy, and each modern thinker marks a change from the ancient forms of government to more liberal side. Machiavelli’s The Prince is a guide for accumulating and keeping power. His work is also a blunt account of how man has self-interest. Hobbes’ The Leviathan is less of a handbook and more of a discussion of the necessity of authority in the sovereign. Hobbes’ work of the state of nature discusses a place that is unsafe and abundant of war. Man depends on the sovereign and uses them to escape the world. His work is not as grim and government surfaces to protect the life, liberty, and people. Locke also opposes the lawlessness and the absent of consent that is present in tyranny. Even though Machiavelli, Hobbes, and Locke are though to be modern thinkers, they all share resemblances with the ancient thinkers. Shockingly, contemporary theorists run into the same problems that ancient and modern thinkers ran into. These problems consisted of order stability, nature, morality, and consent.