Human nature has been and remains one of the most relevant topics for the study of philosophers of various specializations. People approach this problem from different points of view and at multiple levels. Despite the tremendous amount of research on this topic, the works of ancient masters remain relevant to the present day. The works of the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes and the famous Florentine explorer Niccolò Machiavelli are devoted, for the most part, to the problems of the state. However, since any state’s basis is a person, then ultimately, their texts can be considered in the context of the relationship between individuals and the study of the human essence. The purpose of this essay is to examine the views of these two thinkers through their work and to answer the question of whether Hobbes shared Machiavelli’s assertion that man is bad.
Hobbes’s views and opinions can be gleaned from an analysis of one of his most influential works on the social contract, Leviathan. The book’s writing, which examines the structure of society and state, was aided by the time’s social context – the English Civil War in the mid-17th century. The conflict in the country and the reaction of people to it helped Hobbes to understand the human essence and carefully analyze it. Ultimately, the behavior of society, logical inferences, and the generalization of observed events and known history into scientific theory helped Hobbes to form the conclusion that this situation can be avoided only with a strong, unified government (Hobbes, 2013). Otherwise, humans will return to their natural state, full of anarchy and chaos.
Hobbes paid a lot of attention to this concept in his writings, considering the state as a kind of central force that can keep people under control and prevent them from falling into anarchy. Naturally, this state can be achieved only by establishing strong power and observing the social contract by individuals. However, if this condition is not met, people will return to the natural state, which the philosopher describes using the phrase “war of all against all” (Hobbes, 2013). This state is formed due to the lack of trust individuals in each other, so they are ready to take any action. This can be avoided only by uniting and placing your trust in some other form created by people, designed to protect them from threats – the state (Benner, 2018). Only in this way can people organize themselves and build a stable society, refraining from chaos and anarchy.
The experience and views of Machiavelli, in turn, can be analyzed with the help of The Prince. This treatise describes the methodology for seizing power and the qualities of an ideal ruler. At first glance, this work is purely political, which is reflected in its title. However, in the text itself, the philosopher also analyzes man’s nature, since both the rulers and those over whom they rule are people. The Prince’s text considers the necessary qualities of an effective sovereign and analyzes the nature of man. His research is hands-on in nature and has been shaped by the direct experience of observing Italian politicians in real-time. Machiavelli’s goal was not to transfer political knowledge to a scientific form, but rather to record the existing expertise.
Such an approach forms the philosopher’s methodology and leaves an imprint on all his work. Machiavelli devotes a lot of time to practical advice on how a ruler should behave, what qualities he should have, and how exactly they should be manifested. However, this does not mean that the sovereign is some kind of holy being, devoid of vices, and following only virtue. According to Machiavelli, the ruler must sometimes become like animals, especially the fox and the lion, to achieve the goal by combining strength and virtue (Machiavelli, 1998). The philosopher sees the people as very erratic and chaotic, and moreover, not trustworthy. This thought is central in his work since Machiavelli explicitly states that folk’s untrustworthiness is their most basic feature and characteristic (Benner, 2018). According to the philosopher, people’s nature is low; they are ungrateful, fearful, and deceitful (Machiavelli, 1998). These are the qualities that the sovereigns must continuously consider in making their decisions and building their behavior, ultimately not trusting anyone.
Both Machiavelli and Hobbes talk about approximately the same qualities, in a similar way analyzing the interaction of the state and the common people. Despite a century and a half difference between the works and a completely different social context, both philosophers agree on the same idea. According to their works, people have a shallow nature, and the basis of their life is distrust. In the absence of any leading force, which in Hobbes is represented by an abstract state, and in Machiavelli as a concrete ruler, people will fall into chaos, into a war of all against all. The only way to prevent this from happening is to provide a strong authority that considers this low nature of uncertainty and lack of trust.
Thus, despite the somewhat different approaches, scientific in Hobbes and experienced in Machiavelli, the former continues and supports the latter’s idea. According to Hobbes, all people are bad by nature; moreover, in comparison with Machiavelli, Hobbes sees them as much more violent, chaotic, and terrible. However, despite different approaches and varying depth of social thinking, both philosophers agree on the same idea – ordinary people are ungrateful, fickle, and, most importantly, untrustworthy.
References
Benner, E. (2018). Natural suspicion and reasonable trust: Machiavelli on trust in politics. In L. Kontler and M. Somos (Eds.), Trust and happiness in the history of European political thought (pp. 53–75). Brill. Web.
Hobbes, T. (2013). Leviathan. Simon and Schuster.
Machiavelli, N. (1998). The Prince. The University of Chicago Press.