Compare and contrast Machiavelli’s and Hobbes’s approaches to religion and their views of the significance of religion for politics.

Compare and contrast Machiavelli’s and Hobbes’s approaches to religion and their views of the significance of religion for politics.

Niccolo Machiavelli is an important political philosopher notably in the 1400s; he founded Machiavellianism. Machiavellianism view politics as amoral; any means can be employed although unscrupulous to justifiably achieve political power (Machiavelli, 2014). Machiavelli gives examples of leaders that employed his point of view in his book; The Prince. Thomas Hobbes, on the other hand, lived in the 1600s. Hobbes is associated with the western political philosophy that is in line with the social contract theory that is documented in his book; Leviathan.

In his book, The Prince, Machiavelli draws a line between ethics and politics through the emphasis on the human nature that is attributed to the behavior of Prince. The descriptions in The Prince portray prince seeking glory and survival through immoral means. The Machiavelli opinion on the human beings is corrosive and therefore against the religious beliefs that were propagated by Christianity. He further opines that the human beings are greedy, irrational, and incapable of denoting what is good for their livelihoods.

Hobbes gives an unfavorable opinion of human beings; he is pessimistic on psychological egoism. He does not support the fact that the human actions are out if self-interest. He further suggests that the human behavior is motivated by passion; bodily appetite, as well as desires that push an individual to satisfy it, the urge to have satisfaction, might lead to a discomfort (Hobbes, 2006). With the development of passion, an individual is guided by the imaginations and the personal opinions on what might be evil and good; the thoughts are however not in control of the body passion. Hobbes comes out from a materialistic standpoint that lacks the room for moral ideas. The moral ideas are evaluated as either good for the desired behavior or evil for the behaviors that should be avoided. Hobbes attributes the benefits of human nature to characters and goals of moral life that should be defined by human nature and a reference to nature. Hobbes’ opinion can be attributed to the fact that human beings are not able to associate the moral basis on evil or good without seeing the intervention of an authority. The authority, in this case, is religion; God.

The importance of fortune and virtu in people is brought forward in The Prince by Machiavelli. Every individual is expected have both evil and good depending on what is being done (Machiavelli, 2014). Virtu refers to the talent, the ability, and the drive towards the possible achievement of certain goals. Fortuna, on the other hand, refers to any circumstance that the human beings are capable of controlling. Machiavelli creates a connection between virtu and fortuna through their link to the free will. He argues that both virtu and fortuna are essential in the prince’s quest rule successfully.

The adoption of virtu by the prince in contemporary occasions will go hand in hand with the prince’s free will. The freewill allows any rational agent to choose any course of action depending on the available choices. Free will offers the prince a chance to control his actions (Machiavelli, 2014). Equally, Machiavelli presents fortuna as any factor that is not controlled by human beings. Fortuna is effective like freewill in shaping the human behavior. From Machiavelli’s assertions, the relationship between free will, fortuna, and virtu is their inseparable nature when thinking. They are termed as the human beings’ confident in power in line with shaping an individual’s destiny to a certain extent. It is evident that human beings do not have the capability to control their events absolutely. Lack of absolute control over all vents among human beings shows the existence of a supreme being, God, which is in control. There Machiavelli’s assertions recognize the existence of religion and God above the political theatricals.

The new formula based on fortuna and virtu’s roles as proposed by Machiavelli in reference to the human nature opine that an individual can recast virtu’s notions. The recast of virtu can through the lowering of the set moral standards since Machiavelli views virtu as a helpful step to the possibility of a leader gaining full control. In the contradiction to Christian premises, Machiavellianism argues that virtu can lessen the desire and the dependence towards the external world. Machiavelli further opines that reduction of the human dependence on fortuna can hinder the increase in human power (Machiavelli, 2014). The decrease in human power will later lead to a decrease in the human control of fortuna.

Cesare Borgia, Pope Alexander VI’ son, is occasionally used by Machiavelli in his work, The Prince, to demonstrate the example leadership through virtu. He argues that Borga ruled Romagna using tact and skill, virtu, although he had acquired virtu through fortuna. Borga can be termed as a victim of fortuna; he was overthrown after the father’s death (Machiavelli, 2014). The leaders operating with virtu are portrayed as heroes through Machiavellianism since they bring order where there was a disorder.  The created order benefits everybody. Machiavellianism, however, contradicts itself since even leaders with great virtu can be defeated by fortuna as is the case of Cesare Borgia. From Borgia’s rise and fall in leadership, it rings forth the cat that religion plays an important role in the possibility of rising to leadership positions. Borgia was easily ousted from power ye he had risen to be very powerful. His powers and influence had been stemming from his father’s position of influence at the pope.

Hobbes’ Leviathan brings forward the state of nature as the main concept. The main state of nature is fear. Fear as a state of nature provides a major way of dealing with problems that might interfere with issues of political philosophy problems. Hobbes argues that a man is not naturally political and social; nature dissociates human beings. The possibility of violent death scares human beings; man is scared due to the disconnection from nature which acts as a determining factor in life. The fear of death compels human beings to seek peaceful resolutions and peaceful living in conjunction with others who are afraid of a violent end to their lives (Lupoli, 2016). There is need to secure the self-preservation followed by the gathering of other human beings to reach a social contract that can guide the society on how to interact by following the commands in the respective ranks. Hobbes opines that the essential equality is the ability of all human beings to kill each other. The ability to kill each other is essential since all human beings fear to lose their lives (Hobbes, 2006). From that perspective, Hobbes’ argument contravenes the religious premises on the sanctity of life; human beings do not have the right to take others’ lives.

The effect of glory and success on human nature is emphasized by both Machiavelli and Hobbes. The glory in Machiavelli’s argument is brought forward by the ascension to power successfully. Machiavelli’s the Prince give the view that a leader is safer when feared than we loved by the subjects, in a case where the leader lacks one of the attributes. He further opines that the prince desire not to be seen as cruel and regarded as merciful. For instance, Cesare Borgia was viewed as a cruel leader and through the fear of his subjects, he was capable of restoring and reuniting Romagna. Machiavelli values glory as compared to cruelty in the prince’s quest for leadership.

Hobbes on the other hand associates distrust and competition to natural causes of conflicts among the people. The mind pleasures are derived from glory; the good opinions that a man gets. The two political philosophies in accordance to the creation and effect of glory go against the religious tenets. Religion prohibits human beings from killing other people.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

Hobbes, T. (2006). Leviathan. A&C Black.

Lupoli, A. (2016). Hobbes and Religion Without Theology. The Oxford Handbook of Hobbes, 453.

Machiavelli, N. (2014). The prince and other writings. Chicago; The University of Chicago