Machiavelli Vs Hobbes On Human Nature

Niccolo Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes were two very important philosophers and political thinkers who attempted to understand human nature and how human nature affects political theory. In this paper I will compare and contrast the different methodologies Niccolo Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes employed, and then analyze how this difference in methodology created a divergent view of human nature. I will then explain their differing views through the idea of self-interest.
To compare and contrast Machiavelli and Hobbes, I will begin by analyzing the important idea in the following passage by Machiavelli:

But my hope is to write a book that will be useful… and so I thought it sensible to go straight to a discussion of how things are in real
life and not waste time with a discussion of an imaginary world… for the gap between how people actually behave and how they ought to behave is so great that anyone who ignores everyday reality in order to live up to an ideal will soon discover he has been taught how to destroy himself, not preserve himself (Machiavelli, ch. 15).

This quote illustrates Machiavelli’s idea for methodology quite clearly.
Machiavelli was a political observer – he drew conclusions based on the historical evidence and experiences of past leaders and compiled all that he had learned into a manual, or handbook, titled The Prince, which at that time was generally a ‘how-to’ essay for princes on how to attain power and maintain power. Instead of constructing ideas of how things should be in a theoretical or imaginary world, Machiavelli much preferred a realistic analysis of how things actually were in the real world. Machiavelli was a firm believer that the best way to achieve power and to keep it was to follow the advice and actions of those who had succeed, and to avoid the actions of those who had failed – one must refrain from repeating the past mistakes of
others.
In contrast, Hobbes examined and analyzed politics through a scientific perspective; he employed a very strict logical approach to his work in which each argument perfectly followed from the previous one. In writing Leviathan, Hobbes created a philosophical methodology that was similar to the geometric proof. Rather than looking back on history to draw conclusions, Hobbes instead employed a method of constructing abstract ideas. His goal was to write an irrefutable philosophy that could create stability amidst chaos. By analyzing politics through a scientific perspective, Hobbes believed that one could draw accurate conclusions, which would lead to the creation of a state of enduring peace.
Even though their methodologies differed, both Machiavelli and Hobbes drew conclusions that ultimately led them to hold similar views of human nature.
Machiavelli drew conclusions about human nature by observing the way people acted and he looked for the common traits they shared. From these commonalities, Machiavelli asserted that there were certain traits inherent in human nature. To some extent, Machiavelli agreed with Hobbes that people are generally self-interested. Although Machiavelli thought that people’s affection and opinions could be easily swayed, he highly distrusted people; he believed that in favorable times people could be trustworthy, but in times of misfortune or turmoil people would turn against their ruler. Machiavelli argued that while people possessed the ability to be good, they only did so when it was in their best interest to behave. He goes on to write about the ways in which a prince or ruler should behave in order to maintain power and governance over his
people.
Hobbes had a more unsavory view of human nature. He viewed human nature as a struggle for individual self-preservation through competition, which caused people to live in constant war. He wrote, “If any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies; and… endeavor to destroy, or subdue one an other (Hobbes 87).” To illustrate his analysis, Hobbes described human beings as in a state of nature where there is an absence of authority. There are no laws and there is no government, therefore there is a perpetual need to become more powerful than all others, which causes a state of war between human beings. Hobbes argued that in order for humans to exit the state of nature and avoid a state of war, governments must be created to ensure peace and generate stability. Hobbes argued that because people followed the law of nature, which gives one the right of self-preservation, one must strive for peace – this is best achieved, Hobbes argued, through a contract. Thus, in order to forge a more secure state of being, Hobbes concluded that people must give up certain natural rights and transfer them to a higher governing body, which Hobbes called the social contract. The higher governing body then becomes sovereign; it makes laws and defends civil peace. Once a plentitude of people have come together and give consent to a governing body to rule over them, they have established a social contract and created a commonwealth.
While Hobbes’ theory focused on a social contract between a government and its people, Machiavelli’s theory focused on the virtues and traits that make a ruler successful. Machiavelli employed an empirical methodology in which he looked for historical evidence, while Hobbes concluded that a scientific approach to political theory was more useful and stabilizing. Their differences in methodology resulted in a diverging view on human nature and self-interest; however, there were some similarities to be found between Machiavelli and Hobbes’ work as well.