Political Science - Book Review (Essay Sample)

The Significant Political Issues That Arise When Looking at Thomas Hobbes’ The Leviathan, Chapter 13 and Niccolo Machiavelli’s The Prince, Chapter 9.
First Name, (Middle Name Initials), Last Name
University NameThomas Hobbes and Niccolo Machiavelli, both modern philosophers, cover in-depth political outcomes as well as give a detailed account of how human nature differs and its relationship to politics. In the course of their work Hobbes and Machiavelli incline towards the same conclusion, that what is viewed as “just” or “unjust” are mere abstract notions that exist only because of perceptions and consequences. However, each author resorts to dissimilar approaches in amplifying how human nature differs. Machiavelli, in chapter 9 of The Prince, views society as comprising of “opposed classes – the “elite” and the “populace”. The system to how things work in this society is that, on one hand, the populace does not want to be ordered around by the elite while on the other hand, the elite want to order about and oppress the populace. Machiavelli argues that “the conflict between these two irreconcilable ambitions has in each city one of three consequences: rule by one man, liberty, or anarchy” (P 9.31).
In contrast, Hobbes views the nature of society as “solitary” and characterized by a need to enter an agreement to experience law and order. According to Hobbes “nature has made men so equal in the faculties of body and mind” (L 13. 13). In his subtle view of society as an equal system Hobbes asserts that “when all is reckoned together the difference between man and man is not considerable that as one man can thereupon claim to himself any benefit to which another may not pretend as well as he” (L13.13). The picture Hobbes paints in chapter 13 of The Leviathan is of a society with no virtues because from the equality of ability arise the quality of hope in attaining of ends, and the desire for each man to enjoy the same thing which inevitably leads to enmity.
Hobbes adds on that without a common power to keep all men in awe, they are in a condition of war – every man against every man. In conclusion he point outs that “so that in the nature of man, we find three principal causes of quarrel. First, competition; secondly, diffidence: thirdly, glory” (L 13.14).
Because of the divergent views on the nature of society, Hobbes and Machiavelli have equally divergent explanations of the need for politics and law and how it is borne. According to Machiavelli a system of law and order is borne in society because the populace do not want to be oppressed and ordered by the elite and in converse the elite want to oppress the populate. However, “one cannot honorably give the elite what they want, and cannot do it without harming others: (P 9.32). Machiavelli adds on that rule is brought about either by the populace or by the elite, depending on whether one or the other of the factions hopes to benefit from it. In this society there are two ways to such power: the support of the populace or favor of the elite. It must be unequivocally emphasized that Machiavelli inclines towards a system backed by the populace rather than the elite. In his argument, “he who comes to power with the help of the elite has more difficulty holding on to power than he who comes to power with the help of the populace” (P 9.31). In disparity, with the support of the populace everyone is obliged to obey the ruler and it is often easier to neutralize the elite because they are fewer. Finally, “the ruler cannot get of the populace but must live with them; he can, however, get perfectly well without members of the elite” (P 9.31).
Whereas Machiavelli sees the need for politics and law borne of a compromise between two clashing classes, Hobbes sees the need for politics and law borne of a compromise between all members who are the brink or war. According to Hobbes augmentation of dominion over men is necessary to conserve society. This society “is consequent of a time of war, where everyman is enemy to every man, the same is the consequent to the time where in men live without other security than what their own strength and their invention” (L 13.14). Hobbes add on that members in this society live in continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short: living without a common power to keep them in awe. The passives that incline men to peace are: fear of death; desire of such things as necessary to commodious living; and a hope by their industry to obtain them. Hobbes adds that reason would suggest convenient articles of peace upon which men may be drawn to agreement. The supporting argument to this sort of consensus among all men is “howsoever, it may be perceived what manner of life there would be, where there were no common power to fear, by the manner of life which men that have formerly lived in a peaceful government use to degenerate to a civil war” (L 13.15).
A key, yet less profound similarity with Hobbes and Machiavelli is their attitude and discourse towards the concepts of morality, just and virtues. Both of these modern philosophers depict that it is difficult to separate these concepts from one another and one cannot speak of either without mentioning the others. This paper will assume that what is just is virtuous as well as moral and the antonyms are unjust, immoral and imply the presence of vices. Hobbes points out that it is in the best interest of a man who is solitary and in continual fear, danger of violent death, poor, nasty, and brutish to enter into a treaty in order to experience what is just and virtuous acts that are steered by a system of law and order. The idea of just has no place outside a civil state where the actions of man are marred by competition, diffidence and glory which inexorably results in quarrel and war. In this society portrayed by Hobbes, “to this war of everyman against everyman, this is also consequent; that nothing can be unjust. The notion of right and wrong, justice and injustice, have no place. Where there is no common power, there is no law; where no law, no injustice” (L 13.15). Hobbes portrays a society where nothing can be just and moral given that any and every man has a right to everything. He further suggests that the notion of a just and virtue society only makes sense with the int...