Over the last few weeks, our class has focused primarily on two authors and their respective works. Our first paper focused on ethics and politics, but in a general sense. For this paper we have looked at Thomas Hobbes and his work Leviathan, as well as Nicoló Machiavelli and his work The Prince. These works relate to the others we looked at previously, but in a more detailed fashion in which the authors layout what they believe the best way to govern mankind and create peace. While the two authors disagree on many things, there are also several similarities that can be drawn between the two. Their arguments may differ, but their subject matter does not. Both authors seek to address the question of what human nature is and how humans should be governed if it is even possible. By analyzing their arguments, while also taking into account the timing of their work and the political atmosphere surrounding them, one is able to see and understand why these two author’s works were widely influential at the time of their conceiving, and why their works are still influential to the discussion of politics and mankind today.
Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan was written during the English Civil War and being so, Hobbes was seeking to address the problems England faced at the time. His work consists of four different books each offering arguments regarding mankind and how it should be governed. While there are in fact four books, for this paper we will only be focusing on the first two books, which are “The Book of Man” and “The Book of Commonwealth”. Hobbes begins his first book, “Of Man”, by saying that in order to understand states and government, we must begin with understanding “man” and “mankind” and so for Hobbes, his works can be understood as a scientific approach to politics. For Hobbes, human beings are seen as mechanisms that interact with the external world, causing internal reactions. This is why throughout Hobbes’ first Book: “Of Man”, he discusses the different aspects that make up a human being such as our senses, imagination, speech, reason, and many others. “The cause of sense is the external body, or object, which presseth the organ proper to each sense…which pressure…causeth there a resistance, or counter-pressure, or endeavour of the heart to deliver itself…” When this quote is analyzed, we are able to see that for Hobbes, human beings are like animals that react to senses outside of our bodies. These “simple” external sensations are not as simple as they appear, however, because these sensations determine what we as individuals desire and bring about a “motion” in us. His idea of motion and sense leads Hobbes to his idea of imagination, in which he argues that men are imprinted by the aforementioned senses and as a result are able to imagine these sensations even if they are not actually being sensed. Hobbes goes on to break down imagination into several parts.
“Much memory, or memory of many things, is called experience.’ Again, imagination being only of those things which have been formerly perceived by sense, either all at once or by parts at several times, the former, which is the imagining the whole object as it was presented to the sense, is ‘simple’ imagination… The other is ‘compounded’… it is a compound imagination, and properly but a fiction of the mind.” This quote from Leviathan is important because in it, Hobbes is beginning to argue that while man gathers knowledge from his senses, his internal thoughts or “motions” can actually make his knowledge unreliable. From this, Hobbes moves onto what distinguishes humans form animals and that is the ability to reason. For Hobbes, reason can be compared to arithmetic in that it is important to correctly build upon previous information, but again he argues that mankind’s self-interest poses a problem. “But no one man’s reason, nor the reason of any one number of men, makes the certainty… And therefore, as when there is a controversy in an account, the parties must by their own accord set up for right reason the reason of some arbitrator, or judge, to whose sentence they will both stand… for want of a right reason constituted by Nature.”
This last quote is one of the most important parts of Leviathan because in it, Hobbes argues for the importance men consenting to having “some arbitrator”, or in the case of government, a ruler that derives the truth from conflicts. Hobbes first book “Of Man” has a lot of important information in it, but the most important things that should be taken away from it are that men are self-interested and are only focused on self-preservation. Hence the reason Hobbes argues that men must consent to being governed and create a “commonwealth”/state in order to prevent anarchy and protect their self-interests. For Hobbes, the only way to protect ourselves, “is to confer all their power and strength upon one man, or upon one assembly of men, that may reduce all their wills, by plurality of voices, unto one will: which is as much as to say, to appoint one man, or assembly of men, to bear their person”.
In the first book Hobbes established the idea of a commonwealth, “This is more than consent, or concord; it is a real unity of them all in one and the same person, made by covenant of every man with every man, in such manner as if every man should say to every man: I authorise and give up my right of governing myself to this man, or to this assembly of men, on this condition; that thou give up, thy right to him, and authorise all his actions in like manner. This done, the multitude so united in one person is called a COMMONWEALTH” In his next book, “Of Commonwealth”, he advances his argument for government being a monarchy. Remember that the time during which Hobbes wrote Leviathan was when England was at war with itself. The reason for this civil war had much to do with the monarchy, so it is important to understand that while Hobbes argued a monarchy is the best form of government, men must first consent, unlike the divine monarchy present at the time of his work. “For the laws of nature… in sum, doing to others as we would be done to, of themselves, without the terror of some power to cause them to be observed, are contrary to our natural passions, that carry us to partiality, pride, revenge, and the like. Covenants, without the sword, are but words and of no strength to secure a man at all. Therefore, notwithstanding the laws of nature, if there be no power erected, or not great enough for our security, every man will and may lawfully rely on his own strength and art for caution against all other men.”
This quote not only relates to Hobbes argument that men are self-interested and only focused on self-preservation, but in it he asserts that a monarchy is only the best form of government when it is sovereign. While this is the primary argument of the second book, Hobbes also explains that it is the duty of this agreed upon sovereign government to protect the liberties of the people. “A freeman is he that, in those things which by his strength and wit he is able to do, is not hindered to do what he has a will to… from the use of the words free will, no liberty can be inferred of the will, desire, or inclination, but the liberty of the man; which consisteth in this, that he finds no stop in doing what he has the will, desire, or inclination to do.”
Machiavelli’s “The Prince” suggested that a good ruler was to be feared by the people it controls: “It is better to be feared than loved for love is fickle but fear constant.” He goes on to say that “men forget the death of their father more easily than the loss of their inheritance”, it is because of this idea that Machiavelli says that the only way to be feared but not hated is to govern but never take away the people’s property. This again suggests that man is self-centered (like in Hobbes’s State of Nature).
Nicoló Machiavelli’s The Prince is his beliefs and arguments for how government should be organized and taught. Throughout his book he makes several points regarding government and by the end of his work, he introduces the notion of what is now considered realpolitik. The Prince begins with a letter from Machiavelli to “the Magnificent Lorenzo dei Medici”, in which Machiavelli offers his knowledge and advice to Medici. The first three chapters of Machiavelli’s book are titled “Of How Many Kinds of Principalities, and In What Ways They Are Acquired.” In this first chapter, Machiavelli begins to explain the two different types of principalities, which are hereditary or new altogether. He immediately begins to suggest how these governments are achieved by saying “these dominions… are acquired either with others’ arms or with one’s own, either by fortune or by virtue.” In his next chapter, “Of Hereditary Principalities”, Machiavelli focuses on governments that are hereditary. He believes that these hereditary principalities are far easier to govern because of the tradition and lasting order they hold. He suggests that the reason tradition makes these principalities easier to govern is because “it suffices not to break off the orders of one’s ancestors, and then to temporize with accidents… and the memories and causes of the innovation are extinguished in antiquity and contrivance of rule.” It is important to notice that even in the first two chapters, Machiavelli has already suggested that political innovation does not come without violence, something Hobbes differs from that I will touch on later in this analysis.
The next chapter Machiavelli focuses on “Of Mixed Principalities,” which for him are new principalities attached to old ones. Machiavelli argues that in mixed principalities it is much more difficult to govern because the expansion of the old one requires violence, and like mentioned in his first chapter, violence often leaves a scar on the minds of those men involved. This leaves the “prince” in a predicament because members of the new principality remember the old one and cannot be satisfied, nor can force be used against them because “you are obliged to them.” However, there have been successful conquests for new principalities and so in order for Machiavelli to determine and explain what makes a conquest successful, he provides two examples: King Louis XII of France and the Romans. Machiavelli argues that while France failed at acquiring new principalities, the Romans did not. For Machiavelli, the reason the Romans were able to succeed is because they sent individuals to live there (Turks in Greece), “making the possession more secure and more durable.” This is because by establishing a presence in the new land, the Romans were able to recognize issues early on and remedy them before they grew into revolutionary gunpowder. Machiavelli also believes that another key component to the success of a new principality is by discrediting those that have power, and empowering those that did not. For Machiavelli, not only is this a good strategy for conquests, but it also requires minimal effort. “One does not spend much on colonies and he sends them there without expense to himself, or little, and only offends those from whom he takes the fields and the houses, to give to the new inhabitants, who are a miniscule part of the state; and those whom he offends, remaining dispersed and poor, can never harm him…” From these first two chapters, Machiavelli has begun to layout the foundation for how he thinks new principalities should be successfully acquired.
Machiavelli’s The Prince contains numerous suggestions regarding republics, how they should be conquered, ruled, and he draws upon many real world examples to prove his arguments. While there are many things that should be taken away from Machiavelli’s work, the main thing that should be looked at is the simple fact that Machiavelli is a strong proponent for using force to both conquer and rule. From the examples he uses, he is able to show how different republics, kingdoms, and leaders have succeeded and failed throughout history. By doing this, Machiavelli is able to offer up more than just a theory; he is able to offer an argument for why his knowledge is valid and should be put into action. All in all, Machiavelli seems to suggest that a good ruler is a ruler who has so much force and power at his disposal, that those under him do not even question his authority for fear of their own safety. “Nevertheless a prince ought to encourage fear in such a way that, if he does not win love, he avoids hatred. He can carry on very well being feared while he is not hated, which will always be as long as he keeps away from the property of his citizens and subjects and from their women. But when it is necessary for him to proceed against the life of someone, he must do it with proper justification and for obvious reasons. But above all things he must keep his hands off the property of others, because men more quickly forget the death of their father than the loss of their inheritance.” This quote encapsulates Machiavelli’s argument for how states should be governed and from it we can see that ultimately Machiavelli believes something similar to Hobbes; that men only care about self-preservation i.e. their property or “inheritance”.
Thomas Hobbes establishes many important points in his first two books of Leviathan regarding mankind, free will, and how a government should be established and act. Hobbes takes a very scientific approach to his theory in by first establishing what the nature of humans is. While he does not offer a very positive view of mankind in the state of nature, from it he is able to establish what he believes to be the best form of government. For Hobbes, politics serve as a contract between the rulers and the ruled, and because the ruled give up their power to in order survive, they are at the mercy of the ruler. While Hobbes may imply from this that the ruler can do no wrong, it is important to remember that Hobbes spent a great deal of time breaking down human nature and argued that the one or ones in power, should be those that have the most knowledge. Thus, while Hobbes does not directly say whether or not a ruler should be kind to his subjects, he does suggest that the ruler must be just. For Thomas Hobbes, the human state of nature is so brutish and anarchic and that he argues the best life is a life that has security. Security and sovereignty might mean that life is not as beautiful as it could be, but since self-preservation is the goal of any man, these are sacrifices that must be made in order to survive or “live”.
Machiavelli has many similarities with Hobbes, but the main similarity is that they both see mankind as destructive and self-interested. While Hobbes believes that this self-interest will ultimately lead men to consenting to some form of government in order to protect their interests out of survival, Machiavelli seems to argue that because of this self-interest, mankind needs to be governed with force and fear. Both authors have a very negative perception of mankind and because of this, they argue that government serves as a necessary evil. While Hobbes seems to believe that once people enter a contract with a ruler they are at his mercy, Machiavelli’s use of real world examples of successes and failures allows him to go into more detail regarding the character of rulers. For Hobbes, the individuals who are willingly given power to govern people can do no wrong because quite simply, all that matters is mankind’s survival, not necessarily its progress. For Machiavelli, while self-interest and survival seem to be the primary wants of all men, his arguments are not as negative as Hobbes because he does not make it seem like all men are pitted against one another. Rather, Machiavelli seems to argue that those most virtuous rulers should seek to expand their reach, and while this expansion does require violence and force, it is important to balance force with virtue so that the kingdom can survive and persevere. Essentially, Hobbes focuses more on individual men and how they should be ruled in order to survive, while Machiavelli focuses on kingdoms and republics and how they should be governed to survive.