Niccolo Machiavelli’s The Price and The Discourses on Livy, and Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan comprises of crucial political theories which are the foundations of contemporary politics, that many states practice today. Although both Machiavelli and Hobbes see politics as a means of imposing stability, this essay will show that each philosopher advocates for a different political system: Machiavelli supports a republic whereas Hobbes supports an absolute monarchy. Machiavelli suggests that the purpose of the government is to maintain stability and protection, while for Hobbes, it is to bring citizens out of the state of nature.
Both Machiavelli and Hobbes view politics as the imposition of structures to ensure the survival of the state.
Machiavelli urges politicians to be prudent, as it is effective in creating
…show more content…
Instead of following the traditional virtues of moral standards, this is deemed practical. By stating that being a “good man in all circumstances will bring about his own ruin” (48), Machiavelli suggests that it is virtuous and necessary to push morals aside to be effective leaders. Virtu is parallel to being skillful; using strategic techniques to reach one’s goals. In the same way, it is suggested politicians should overlook morals to act prudently, bringing stability to the state. Here, the notion of a manipulative and dishonest behavior becomes present, as it is suggested that princes should build crafty political orders to maintain stability. Following virtu creates prudent decisions, which are best for maintaining the state. It is suggested that the stability of the state is achieved through strong material advantage, and glory. The ability to round up an adequate military force gives princes material advantage, which will prove to be successful in times of external threats. This is one way citizens could measure the strength of their leader (34), motivating leaders to act politically, as it highlights the ability of a prince to act in a state-interested