Hobbes and Machiavelli

Thomas Hobbes, the son of an English vicar in the late 16th Century, approaches the questions of politics and human nature in a unique way, but there are definite similarities between his work and the work of earlier philosophers. Hobbes’ political theory coincides with the political theory of Niccolò Machiavelli, and yet differs in the theory of virtù. Hobbes follows Machiavelli in some important aspects of political theory, and yet expands upon or discards Machiavelli’s ideas in other important aspects. Both men agree that politics directly corresponds to the nature of man and that the concepts of right and wrong are arbitrary and result only from human perspectives and experience. Hobbes focuses on the principle that what is good and what is evil comes from a person’s own interests while Machiavelli emphasizes the point of self-reliance, or virtù. The idea of virtù is opposed to Hobbes’ argument of the human mind in nature. Hobbes states that rulers rise from the need to have a ruler and Machiavelli asserts that rulers arise only because of either fortune or their virtù, meaning qualities they have in their personalities. In The Prince, Machiavelli combines solid logic and reason with the concepts of virtù and fortune. He says “…a private individual only becomes a ruler, if [he] is either lucky or skillful [virtù]. Both luck and skill enable you to overcome difficulties. Nevertheless, he who relies least on luck has the best prospect of success.” (Machiavelli 18) In this excerpt, Machiavelli addresses the ways that people can come into power. The idea that entry into power comes from either fortune or the virtù of the individual is very evident in The Prince. Machiavelli affirms that even though it may be difficult to come to power based on one’s virtù, it creates an easier time ruling. On the other hand, those men who come to power based on fortune have to understand that just as fortune has been given to them, it can be taken away. In addition, the men who