Machiavelli and Hobbes

Machiavelli and Hobbes

To be successful, one must have the appearance of virtuousness, but not necessarily be virtuous. At least, this appears to be true according to Niccolo Machiavelli's works. Machiavelli's idea of the virtuous republican citizen may be compared to Hobbes' idea of a person who properly understands the nature and basis of sovereign political power. Hobbes' ideas seem to suggest that most anyone can claim rightful authority as there is a belief in God, and one can under Hobbes, claim legitimate authority rather easily. There are few proofs. Machiavelli, on the other hand, takes a strong position and suggests specific criteria in terms of power. With Machiavelli, there is a sense of righteousness and fairness and while he does not sanction authoritarian rule to save man from himself, it is also true that Machiavelli puts a lot of faith in leaders also. In some respects, one can see that the two theorists agree yet Machiavelli's proposed Political society is more feasible thus superior to that of Hobbes.

While both Machiavelli and Hobbes agree that there should be rule by a sovereign, and that this individual will probably make better decisions than individuals, the two disagree on basic assumptions. While Machiavelli believes that the ends justify the means, Hobbes tends to align religion and politics and sees the way in which policies play out as vital for the moral good of society. Machiavelli embraces the idea of a virtuous republican citizen similar to how one might consider a citizen today. To give power and authority to the individual in charge, and trust in what he is doing, is to be virtuous. Hobbes' idea of a subject who properly understands the nature and basis of sovereign political power is more important than the simple, unquestioning support of the leader.

It would seem that Machiavelli would see the best qualities of a staunch Republican citizen in the manner described. The individual should be supportive of his or her leader and while not completely unquestioning; the citizen should be accepting of the leader's judgment. One could infer that the primary qualities of a staunch Republican citizen are characterized by traits which go to loyalty and trust. Trust in the leader is essential and may be developed in many of ways. A Republican citizen may be compared to subjects of principalities or to corrupt political societies. However, a Republican citizen is not corrupt. He or she is dedicated to the proliferation of a good and peaceful state. Hobbes might respond to Machiavelli's claims for the superiority of republican citizenship and republic liberty quite differently, contending that the leader is not necessarily always morally correct. Yet, Hobbes does see sovereigns as deserving of respect and believes that they may know more than the average citizen. That kings and queens and princes are born knowing how to rule is a belief that perhaps these philosophers share.

Hobbes seems to simply see legitimate authority as existing by nature, and necessary due to the nature of man. In some way, one can say that this is true of Machiavelli as well. Hobbes said, in The Leviathan: "...it is the part of a wise man to believe them no further than right reason makes that which they say appear credible" In other words, Hobbes supports a host of things simply because he is fascinated with authority kings, queens, and princes, whether that authority is truly legitimate or not. While in some sense Hobbes is more reasonable in discerning right and wrong action, he still believes in God and that is paramount.

In looking at the Hobbes point of view, it seems that Machiavelli has overlooked some key features in that Machiavelli fails to put God above man. This is an important point and to some extent divides the ideas of Hobbes and Machiavelli. It is difficult to imagine making law without God at the center. The two men seem to passionately disagree and have a grossly different outlook in terms of who is running the show. The embrace of God, or the rejection of God, is important in terms of how one views man. Machiavelli believes that good Princes make good law because there is an intrinsic right and wrong, but Hobbes really puts God at the center of the issue asserting that what is good is of God.

There are several other differences one can note when comparing and contrasting Hobbes and Machiavelli. Machiavelli conveys the message that leaders must change with the times while it would seem that Hobbes would not support such a notion as God's dictums are timeless. In many ways, the convictions that underlie Hobbes' ideas are stronger. There was an incompatibility of religious ideas and a humanity that seems to be more equated with selfishness than with generosity. According to Machiavelli, one must have the appearance of virtuousness, but not necessarily be virtuous. That seems to be a contradiction and Hobbes would not likely support such an idea. At the same time, Machiavelli's ends justifying the means hypothesis is not all that terrible. Those who would criticize the position would be comforted to know that the author fully expects a leader to look at every possible option and not to make choices frivolously. In other words, Machiavelli believes that princes should be accountable. He believed in good and bad and sincerely held that people could make good choices.