Machiavelli and Hobbes
When attempting to articulate the intricacies and paradoxes of the human political process in a clear, philosophical manner, every philosopher or thinker must establish a mode of political philosophy that necessarily prioritizes certain qualities of human nature over others. In fact, it is likely that political philosophy fundamentally involves evaluating and analyzing human nature as it manifests in collective society. Some political philosophers consider universal impulses like selfishness” or even self-preservation to be not only key components of political theory but also essential aspects of human society as a whole.
In this regard, political philosophy must be viewed as a pragmatic discipline. It seeks to understand, influence, and possibly control the massively complex and historically titanic apparatus of human government. Political philosophers such as Machiavelli and Hobbes view the apparatus of human government (and its historical evolution) differently. For Machiavelli, government is an instrument of power that serves the self-determined ruler. On the other hand, for Hobbes, the leviathan of government is an historical manifestation of nature (itself a manifestation of Divine Power), and the ruler of government is endowed with power.
According to Hobbes, justice involves a vision of human society as a war of each against all,” where each person has a right to all things (Ewin 93). Since there is an absence of justice and ethical law in nature, Hobbes envisions justice as “the condition that obtains between sovereign states; a condition in which each is his own judge” (Ewin 93). This assumption heavily relies on the notion of power.
The idea of power finds expression not only in interpersonal relationships but also in civic relationships. According to Hobbes, there must be authority to administer justice where it is absent in a state of nature. In effect, Hobbes has created a reductio argument to show the necessity of authority relationships in any social life” (Ewin 94). It is from these authorities that justice is both defined and enforced upon an essentially amoral or even immoral universe. Although Hobbes’ language on the subject of the state of nature may seem dense and hard to penetrate, his conclusions are essentially simple: that the laws of nature must only be observed “as they subject us not to any incommodity that may arise by neglect thereof in those towards whom we observe them” (Ewin 118). However, Hobbes is certainly not promoting or extending the idea that anything like an absolute sense of justice exists in the state of nature. Instead, it is a war for power and the ability to define justice and determine moral and ethical standards.
Hobbes discusses the concept of a leviathan,” which is a social-political construct or State that serves as communal opposition to the inherently destructive natural instincts for selfishness and pursuit of individual hedonism that arise from the state of nature. In the context of the relationship between individual desires and state power, individuals must submit to the will of the State.
As a matter of justice, communal life in the face of disagreement requires that some individuals submit to others. If we want to have communal life, submission is inevitable. The crucial question is whether the procedure for determining who submits to whom is fair and just.
(Ewin 201)
For Hobbes, notions of freedom, justice, personal liberty, and personal property are not rooted in nature but are constructed from human rationality in the face of lawless nature. The adjudication and enforcement of any system of justice or ethics depend on power. The power of a leviathan or State to enforce justice exists due to the covenant with the collective citizenry. Although it may be oversimplifying Hobbes’ philosophy to state explicitly that he equates power with justice, such a connection is present in his theories.
Similarly, Machiavelli expresses the view in both The Prince” and “The Discourses” that government is an agency by which humanity protects itself from itself. Like Hobbes, a natural hierarchy is implied. In “The Discourses,” Machiavelli writes, “the preference given to the nobility, as guardians of public liberty, has two advantages: the first is to yield something to the ambition of those who are more engaged in public affairs and find themselves with a weapon in their hands.” The implication is that those with ambition may rise to be guardians of public liberty and that obviously, the public requires guardians above themselves.
Of note is the following passage from Discourses, V. It insinuates that even among the ambitious, lesser traits of self-interest and self-glorification will be somewhat blunted by the simple reality of rising over the public to attain a means of power that satisfies them; the other, to deprive the restless spirit of the masses of an authority calculated from its very nature to produce trouble and dissensions.
It is possible that Machiavelli, like Hobbes, viewed sovereigns as those ordained by nature or Divine Will to rule over those less resourceful and powerful. Both philosophers tend to equate sovereignty with justice, then justice with Divine Will. This train of thought seems based on rationality and deductive reasoning for each philosopher. However, upon closer inspection, both Machiavelli and Hobbes may have used a simpler derivation of government sovereignty: reflecting purely the will of the victor – the strongest.
When Machiavelli remarks, We must employ all proper means to repress violence and force, and whoever claims justice shall employ the regular way for obtaining it and aid no one in employing force or violence” (Discourses VI), it may appear that he is condemning the use of violence as a political agent. However, in reality, he suggests that those who wield sufficient force should attempt to quell violence in others – those who may someday stand opposed to them.
Both Hobbes and Machiavelli are interesting because their pragmatic rationality acknowledges the universal propensity for selfishness and competition. However, they somehow believe that the sovereignty of government, which is attained through means that facilitate selfishness and hierarchical competition, can also be connected to justice.” According to Machiavelli, a corrupt government leads to a state where “all religion and fear of God are extinct,” causing oaths and pledges to lose value except when used for personal gain (Discourses X).
In this statement, there can be no doubt that Machiavelli believes a good government, one which is not “corrupted,” must be rife with a healthy “fear of God” and a functioning religious core. This observation betrays the fact that whatever Machiavelli’s finer preoccupations with political statecraft and theoretical concepts regarding politics might have been, his heart was firmly entrenched in the idea of monarchy and the Divine Right of Royals.
In fact, Machiavelli insinuates that a people without a monarchical ruler will become lost.
Many examples in ancient history prove how difficult it is for a people that have been accustomed to living under the government of a prince to preserve their liberty if, by some accident, they have recovered it. This difficulty is reasonable because such people can be compared to wild animals that, although naturally ferocious and savage, have been subdued by being kept imprisoned and in servitude. When let out into the open fields,
(Machiavelli, 1998, p. 86)
This conclusion should not be surprising, as Western society has historically viewed politics as a way to grapple with human nature and the self-interests that are believed to drive human behavior. Although this perception of human nature has opposing views among Western philosophers such as Locke, the collective impact of The Prince and Leviathan provides penetrating insights into the hierarchical and self-interested aspects of humanity. Some may argue that these views contradict the essential viewpoint and philosophical perspective necessary for Western society to embrace in the future.
One important insight, in my opinion, is that these great philosophers represent the visions and ideas about politics from the past. Although still relevant today, they are likely to evolve in the future. It could even be suggested that the current global discord and challenges present a time of punctuated equilibrium” for Western philosophical and political thought.
To begin with, it is sometimes difficult for me to see the massive, sometimes oppressively omnipotent” government in contemporary times as something that is not only necessary but also demonstrates both the triumph of humanity over the hostilities of nature and the attainment of “justice”. However, many other people, including those in powerful positions in government believe this completely.
When Hobbes writes that, Hitherto I have set forth the nature of Man (whose pride and other passions have compelled him to submit himself to government) together with the great power of his Governor, whom I compared to Leviathan, taking that comparison out of the two last verses of the one and fortieth of Job; where God having set forth the great power of Leviathan, calleth him King of the Proud” (Waller, 1901, p. 231), it is alarming to think that actual people in positions of power in the real world believe this as gospel. Specifically, I think about the Bush administration’s recent attempt to expand Presidential authority: “There is nothing,” saith he, “on earth to be compared with him. He is made so as not to be afraid. He seeth every high thing below him; and is King of all the children of pride” (Waller, 1901,p.231).
What are the implications of these political philosophies for modern applications? How do Hobbes and Machiavelli’s abstract concepts apply to modern America? The logical outcome of the modern vision of the President as a leader of a specific political party, rather than the Constitutional conception of the President as a non-partisan arbiter of Congress, is that individual Presidential candidates would emerge as the foremost consideration in Presidential elections. Hobbes’ Leviathan needs a head,” and in modern times his admonition seems especially frightening:
The maintenance of Civil Society depends on Justice, and Justice relies on the power of Life and Death, as well as other lesser rewards and punishments. These powers reside in those who hold the sovereignty of the Commonwealth. It is impossible for a Commonwealth to stand where anyone other than the Sovereign has the power to give greater rewards than life or inflict greater punishments than death.
(Waller, 1901, p. 326)
In practical terms, the rise of the candidate” campaign has eliminated the old method of “platform” politics. This is where a political party’s ideological and issue-related stances are measured against one another in a direct contest between candidates. One clear result of this practice is that individual candidates are now virtually dissected by the media and prospective voters to measure their probable “characters” and “defects.” Arguably, fascination with individual manners, faux pas, manner of dress, speech, religious affiliation, past memberships in social organizations or clubs or even past associations with friends or acquaintances now plays a more important role than issues in recent Presidential elections.
The most important lesson I learned from the class readings is that the self-interest of leaders can become the most dangerous threat to any nation, culture, or society. I specifically learned this from reading The Prince, which, like Hobbes, was more illuminating on how Western society has viewed itself and its political institutions than as a penetrating glimpse into humanity’s essential nature or future cultural and political existence.
According to Machiavelli, the self-interest of leaders should not even justify heinous acts such as political assassination. Machiavelli emphasizes that all political acts are rooted in self-interest. Politicians are driven not by public service, but by public passivity and censure. When discussing Oliverotto’s murder of his enemies, Machiavelli notes: After this murder, Oliverotto mounted his horse, paraded through the town, and besieged the chief officials in the government palace; so that out of fear they were forced to obey him and to constitute a government of which he made himself prince” (Machiavelli, 1998, p. 32).
Implicit in this remark is not only the idea that murder can be an expedient political strategy, but also that any political act is only partially what it appears to be. Machiavelli mentions Oliveratto, stating And when all those who were discontented and could have harmed him were killed, he strengthened himself by instituting new civil and military institutions. In the space of a year, he held the principality” (Machiavelli, 1998, p. 32).
Taken together, the political philosophies of Machiavelli and Hobbes leave little room or desire for modern democracy. The hierarchical vision of sovereignty and justice that informs each philosopher’s view of human political society suggests that only a direct and absolute form of power – monarchal power – is stable enough to protect the public from its own selfish nature. Both men insinuate that this form of government is part of Divine Will.
The one overarching paradox that emerges from even a cursory reading of Machiavelli and Hobbes is that the extreme cynicism informing their view of human nature is somehow transformed through the simple possession of sovereignty into an extreme idealism. This suggests that a nation’s rulers are closer to god” than those whom they rule. Such a conclusion does not seem readily evident or sustainable by pure rational thought. However, this view becomes far more understandable when one entertains the idea of a sort of “social Darwinistic” underpinning to everything being suggested about human nature, human competition, and the organization of human society and government by Machiavelli and Hobbes.
If one accepts the premise that humans are self-interested by nature and that this self-interest promotes competition, leading to the rise of the best” to rule the “lesser,” then Hobbes and Machiavelli’s conclusions about the “justice” of laws made by sovereigns and imposed upon the public make sense. However, both philosophers also accord a role to violence and power in the evolution of justice and sovereignty. It is not a stretch to suggest that they are offering “might is right” as a core belief in everything else flowing through their political philosophies.
In conclusion, Hobbes and Machiavelli’s political philosophies have driven Western politics for centuries. Despite their rational conclusions, observations, and inspired thoughts, none of their theories seem to address contemporary society’s most problematic issues. By following these philosophical systems’ ideas that elevate self-interest, social schism, warfare, and political expedience weaken rather than strengthen Western society’s social, political, and cultural resources.
References
Machiavelli, N. (1998). The Prince. Edited by P. Bondanella and translated by P. Bondanella and M. Musa.
Oxford University is located in Oxford.
Plato (1991) wrote The Republic of Plato” which was translated by Bloom, A. The book is in its 2nd edition and was published by Basic Books in New York.
Waller, A. R. (Ed.). (1904). Leviathan: Or, the Matter, Forme & Power of a Commonwealth.
Ecclesiastical and Civil. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Ewin, R. E. (1991). Virtues and Rights: The Moral Philosophy of Thomas Hobbes. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Detmold, Christian E. (1882). The Historical, Political, and Diplomatic Writings of Niccolo Machiavelli translated from the Italian. Boston: J.R. Osgood and Company. Volume 2.
