Machiavelli & Hobbes

Here is a controversial HCJ topic that centers round the politics of power. For this topic, we also had a screening of The Godfather which portrayed the ideas of Machiavelli in the form of a New York mafia family and their power over others.   I find that after each of these lectures and seminars, we begin to question our own society in conjunction with the ideas and contexts of the philosophers.

MACHIAVELLI

Machiavelli (16th century) wrote ‘The Prince’ with the political tumult of his time in mind. Italy was going through many political conflicts, and he very much opposed the Medici family who then arrested him and sent him to live away near Florence. In order to win the favour of the Medici family, Machiavelli wrote ‘The Prince’ (Note: he didn’t succeed).

His work, ‘The Prince’, can be described as a ‘how-to guide’ for rulers, and it projected much stark realism throughout. He can also be said to have ‘redefined morality’ as he classes there are two kinds of it: one for ordinary people, and one for princes (or rulers). You can almost see how desperate Machiavelli was to gain the Medici’s favour.

The prince’s code is different and much more appropriate to their position, as it must be effective. What is meant by ‘effective’ is that sometimes it is necessary for a prince to be evil – for example, China’s effectiveness vs Zimbabwe’s. Machiavelli believed that men are egoists, and so in order to stay in power and defeat enemies, the prince should act in self-interest and be immoral at times.

There are two goals for the prince:

1. You’ve got to be able to maintain yourself in power
2. You’re got to be able to maintain your state, which if your first duty of the true prince.

There are also a few rules that Machiavelli sets out for the prince:

• Support the weaker side because you will be the dominant power in the end (My enemy’s enemy is my friend)
• Centralised regimes are difficult to conquer but easy to hold
• Armed prophets succeed and unarmed ones fail (this is due to Machiavelli’s bitterness of Savonarola’s – the leader of Florence before the Medici – execution)

He went on to explain that “men forget the death of the father more easy than the loss of their inheritance”, and so we must concentrate on human obstacles rather than property.

HOBBES

Hobbes wrote his book, ‘The Leviathan’. a century after Machiavelli. The name is derived from the biblical sea monster. The main theme throughout the text is fear, which is understandable when considering the context of it – the English Civil War and the execution of King Charles.

Our state of nature is aggressive, and if we don’t form a civilisation, then there would be ‘no arts, no letters, no society’, and life would be ‘nasty, brutish and short’. Civilisation mitigates our state of nature – a state of constant war. We would live in ‘continual fear’ without civilisation.

This would therefore mean that we must form a social contract. We would have to give up our freedoms, except one, to the sovereign who would protect us. Our morality would come from the ruler, and all citizens would make an agreement to not harm one another.

The only freedom that we would not give up is self-preservation. The reason for this is that if the social contract fails, then we must protect ourselves. However, when would it be reasonable to practice this? Take this as an example: if a man intending on killing you arrives at your house and enters it, when would it be permissible to take action against him? When he is outside of your house? Entering it? Or when he is physically attacking you?

However, Locke would disagree with Hobbes. Locke would say that our state of nature is a very social one, that we would peacefully honour obligations, and that we would have an innate sense of good and bad. Locke famously said that we have many rights – ‘life, liberty, and property’ (then changed to ‘pursuit of happiness’ in the Declaration of Independence by Jefferson).

To summarise, Machiavelli is very much teleological in terms of how to get to power – one must do things with the end in mind – the ends justify the means. There is no social contract as such, just individual manipulation in order to gain power. However, with Hobbes, there must be an understanding of how the public makes the leader powerful, and how they must protect us. There is a connection, a trust, a bond.