Machiavelli and Hobbes and their theories on human nature and

absolute authoritarianism

Subject: Political Philosophy

Year 1 Semester 2

Submitted by: Atta Muhammad Kamboh - 1203

Submitted to: Madam Aminah Gillani

Department of Political Science

Government College Lahore

 Introduction
Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes were both the great Political Philosophers of their times. Their
writings still have a great influence on the Western Political thoughts. Both have their
pragmatic views on human nature and the development of political absolutism for the societal
build up in every aspect of moral and political spheres.

Machiavelli was an Italian renaissance philosopher who is famously known for his work ‘The
Prince’. He is also considered a father of the modern political philosophy in the history of
political science.
In the first place, both The Prince and The Discourses have a result of Machiavelli’s most
important concern with the development and maintenance of Italian unity. In The Prince, he
dealt with the problems of state’s stability through the agency of absolute government.

Machiavelli has a very pessimistic view on the human nature throughout his life. He believed
that humans are selfish, aggressive, discontented, wicked by nature. Humans always work for
their own benefits and never care about the society. It keeps fighting each other for the sake of
food, shelter and power. And it always works against the collective interest of the society.

In the chapter XVII of The Prince, he clearly expressed his views about the human nature;

"For of men it may be generally affirmed, that they are thankless, fickle, false, studious to
avoid danger, greedy of gain, devoted to you while you are able to confer benefits upon
them, and ready, as I said before, while danger is distant, to shed their blood, and sacrifice
their property, their lives, and their children for you; but in the hour of need they turn against
you."

Machiavelli’s views regarding politics, religion, and morality are mainly based on his view of
human nature. He believed that the instability of desires cannot satisfy human appetites.

Machiavelli’s central concept is ‘Virtue’ (Power and functions of political rule). The Latin root of
virtue is ‘Virile’ (Power). He believed that rulers cannot be bound by morality.

‘The ends justify the means’ (only for the Prince not for the general people). It means that the
ruler can use cruel, swift, and firm means but he must attain effective positive results of their
actions. He devised different laws for the prince and the general people because he believed
that prince is a head of state and he has many responsibilities to care about their people’s
welfare and prosperity.

He believed that to be successful a prince must study history, study war and know his own
land. He must give the appearance of being good, but also know how to be evil. A prince should
be willing to use cunning if needed and deception if necessary. He may and may not be loved,
but as long as he is not hated. Prince should choose wiser advisers and avoid flatterers.

In a nutshell, he was in favour of ‘absolutism’ (absolute authority) for a prince to rule the
matters of state under the firm authority and control.
 Thomas Hobbes
Thomas Hobbes was an English philosopher and also considers one of the founders of modern
political philosophy. The essence of the Hobbes’s philosophy is found in his famous book
‘Leviathan’ in which he expounds an influential formulation of social contract theory. Hobbes
described ‘Doctrine of supremacy of the state power’ and also strongly advocated the
absolutism. In the Thomas Hobbes time, every matter of the state was solved by the religion
and the God. By getting influenced by the scientific revolution, he stepped to discover and
explain the origin and nature of the state scientifically without including God and the religion.

Hobbes regards human nature as self-interested and self-regarding. Hobbes’s view of human
nature has a profound impact on his political theory. He believed that human beings are by
nature power seekers who would annihilate each other if it is not constrained.

‘State of nature of every man against every man in which life of man is solitary, poor, nasty,
brutish, and short’.

According to the Hobbes, when there was no state, then there was no ruler, no laws, no
morality and no one to exercise authority over man. Hobbes described the condition of the
state of nature as pre-social and pre-political. Human nature was ‘selfish’ and engaged
themselves in their interest gains. He also believed that in a state of nature, it would be a war
of all against all.

Humans are incapable in establishing the moral order because they always purse towards their
self-interest. Therefore, life in the state of nature is solitary, nasty, poor and short.

He also believed that in the absence of absolute government, humans would be

psychologically prone to violence. He also thought that we would be locked in a kind of stand-
off and the only solution for this would be if we hand over a key part of our rights and freedom
to one sovereign authority for the establishment of superior order to discipline them. Therefore
he states,

‘Humans are roughly equal. They were inevitably going to fight each other to
destroy the quality of life in the state of nature due to their aggressive
behaviour. So to preserve our rights and flourishing of civilization, that can only
be achieved by surrendering certain powers (key of our rights) and
responsibilities to a central authority namely a king or monarch’.

 Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes’s pessimistic views on human nature and

absolutism authority

Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes both hold pessimistic views against the human nature because
of their life-earning experiences. Both were the great philosophers of their times who worked
intensively for the reformation of their states and their system of governance. Both thought
that human nature are self- preserved, discontented, aggressive and selfish towards the
fulfilment of their desires. Humans never care about the societal values development and for
the flourishing of human civilization. So, it is best and foremost to develop strong absolutism in
our society to keep them in order to live freely and independent for the sake of the protection
of fundamental rights of the people and to retain sole power- full absolute authority on them.

Both believed that this ‘sovereignty’ over peoples can retain the peaceful atmosphere and also
keep strong governance in the society. They both knew that ‘Man seeks peace, for peace he
can sacrifice their rights of all things’ due to their self-preservation and selfish way of thinking
for the preservation of their interests. So, they both explained this Sovereign Power in the form
of ‘Monarchy’.

 My view regarding their both respective theories on human nature and

absolute authoritarian form of authority

I personally argument against their views in terms of ‘Monarch form of governance’

somehow I favour their respective approaches towards human nature and the human
aggressive way of thinking for the preservation of their self-interest whether societal
values destroy itself.
Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes’s view on absolutism is somehow workable in today’s
contemporary life but the system of governance ‘Monarch’ has lost its charm in the
history of human civilization development.
The governing system as given by both Thomas Hobbes and Machiavelli is less-effective
for the protection of the fundamental rights of human beings. For example, if we give all
authority to one man that Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes presented to govern the
state affairs, so is there any guarantee of human’s rights protection by the Monarch?
Because as explained by their both concepts on human nature as they both defined
humans as selfish, discontented towards their self-interest. So in this regard, how could
we believe that this system of absolutism or monarch would protect the integrity of
state and could give assurance of the fundamental rights of human?

The today’s contemporary world has changed so differently. Humans have now moved
towards the development of civilization and grew into the age of wisdom.
Now the system of rule and governance has changed. Democratic system of government
has been established, peoples have been defined their rights by the constitution- a set
of rules and regulations which defines the principles and laws to govern the matters of
the state effectively. Everyone can take part in governmental and state’s affairs in terms
of national service. But the monarch system of governance doesn’t provide this right to
its people. Advisers and consultants were chosen on the kin’s will and choices. But now
if someone tries to snatch the rights of people whether it is ruler or someone, the
constitution and the states laws would protect their fundamental and their political
right.
In terms of absolute authority as explained by both of them philosophers, it is necessary
for the good governance and for the effective administration. Everything must be
directly under control of the government. Nothing mustn’t be above than and out of
control of the ruling body of governance.
The presidential system of government now possess all qualities of absolutism as
explained by both of them Philosopher, it also guarantees the protection of human
fundamental rights as well as possesses the full absolute sovereign power. Everything is
under directly control and nothing can ignore or reject its order of governance. But if it
snatches the people’s rights, then the constitution has defined their right of defamation.

Both of Philosopher’s concepts on absolute form of governance are correct and

legitimately valid but the system of monarch as they both explained isn’t good at
today’s contemporary world. Because there is doubt of snatching the rights of peoples
in terms of achieving full absolute supreme power by someone’s greedy and
selfishness.