.2 Compare Hobbes and Machiavelli on Human Nature. What is the role of Fear in each?
Thomas Hobbes and Machiavelli shared a commonality in the time period in which they each lived. Separated by approximately 100 years, both thinkers were focusing on political theory. Hobbes’ theory tended to focus on the social contract between a people and its government. Machiavelli’s theory focused on the attributes that formed a successful ruler. Examining both theories, a comparison is evident in that Machiavelli and Hobbes both seem to discuss the human nature of society.
In Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes views human nature as individual self-preservation and as a place of constant war. There is a constant struggle between men. What causes this conflict amongst men? Hobbes believes that competition and glory causes war between men. He says, ” If two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies…and endevour to destroy one another.” He concludes that self-preservation is the only way to safeguard from being destroyed. The only way to preserve oneself is to become more powerful than the other. Government must also be instituted to ensure peace and security through whatever means necessary. Hobbes believes that life without government would be “poore, nasty, brutish and short.”
In the Prince, Machiavelli views human nature as pertaining to those who are ruled and those who rule. He promoted a secular society and believed that morality stood in the way. He distrusts people and believes that “…in a time of adversity, when the state is in need of its citizens there are few to be found.” He questions the loyalty of the citizens. Because of this, he advises the Prince that, “…because men are wretched creatures who would not keep their word to you, you need keep your word to them.” Machiavelli believed that the secular form of government to be the most successful. His views were to benefit the prince by maintaining power rather to serve the well being of the citizens.
The Term Paper on Machiavelli Vs More Human Nature
Questions about how a society should be run have been debated throughout history. From early philosopher, Plato, who wrote about a successful republic to today? s most prominent republican, George W. Bush, the ideals of government have certainly changed. Added to the forum of debate are two Renaissance writers, Sir Thomas More and Nicole Machiavelli. Machiavelli? s book, The Prince, a guide to how ...
Hobbes and Machiavelli both have interesting ideas on Human Nature. Both of their ideas also contain an evident theme. The theme is the usage of fear as a means acquiring power and maintaining it. The theme of fear is not illustrated in great detail in Hobbes work as it is in Machiavelli’s. Nevertheless an interesting comparison can be drawn between the two.
Hobbes believes that people naturally fear death. The easiest and safest way to avoid death was to create a centralized state. An autocracy would ensure the universal desire for life. According to Hobbes, people would give up their power collectively to one ruler. In turn, the people would shut up and do what they were told. The only right they would have would be the right not to be killed. They would live under a tyrannical ruler who had all powers to decide good and evil for the people. He believes that fear is essential to maintain power and authority of the people. This is evident in his text with, “And covenants, without the sword are but words, and strength to secure a man at all.”
Machiavelli poises the question to the Prince “is it better to be loved than feared or vice versa” He addresses this question in regards to what benefits a ruler more. He concludes that a prince cannot be both feared and loved. Machiavelli believes that it is better to be feared by the citizens. This is seen as an “economy of violence” in which fear is used by violence to invoke a lasting impression on the people. This “economy” must happen at the beginning on an event where the timing is equally important. The violent act must be made into a spectacle done in the open where people can see and judge. People judge by appearances, so what they see will affect their mentality. The more violent the act the more fearful the individual will be of the same act upon them.
The Essay on The Fear of Power
Fear can be a profoundly persuasive tool. Looking back at the Salem Witchcraft Trials of 1692, and later on in the McCarthy trials, you can determine that fear was a ruling factor in the behavior of those involved. Arthur Miller was unmistaken when he stated in Why I wrote The Crucible: An Artist’s Answer to Politics by Arthur Miller that “fear doesn’t travel well; …it can warp judgment” (1). The ...
Fear in a sense is used by both authors to train the people. It must be instilled upon them in order to maintain a successful regime. It is like the training of an animal. The master must instill on the animal that he is in charge. If he does not then the animal will overpower the master. The master must make the animal afraid of him by punishing it when it does wrong. Eventually the animal will realize who is in control.
As one can see that the views on Human nature differ in ways amongst the two authors. However an interesting commonality exists between the two. This commonality was shown to be the existence of fear in society. Fear in human nature can propel the individual in control to maintain power undisputed. By exploiting the fear of the people the leader can rise in power. The leader must know when to use violence and when not to. Once the leader has successfully discovered the balance between the two then he will
