Do Hobbes & Machiavelli's Views Reflect Pessimism in Political Theory?

This essay delves into the political theories of Thomas Hobbes and Niccolo Machiavelli to determine if their views can be characterized as pessimistic. It analyzes their perspectives on human nature and the state, highlighting their emphasis on the self-serving and often ruthless aspects of human behavior. The essay argues that both thinkers present a negative view of human capabilities for self-governance, justifying the need for strong, centralized authority. By examining their core arguments and contrasting them with more optimistic perspectives, the essay concludes that both Hobbes and Machiavelli exhibit a pessimistic outlook in their political philosophies due to their focus on the darker aspects of human nature and their advocacy for powerful, sometimes authoritarian, governance. Desklib provides access to this essay and many other solved assignments for students.

Running head: HOBBES AND MACHIAVELLI, ARE THEY PESSIMIST THINKERS?
Hobbes and Machiavelli, are they pessimist thinkers?
Name of the student
Name of the university
Author Note

1HOBBES AND MACHIAVELLI, ARE THEY PESSIMIST THINKERS?
Introduction
This paper aims to analyze the nature of rule of the two most prominent political theorists
of all times. This paper is an analysis of the issue by comparing the two thinkers to highlight the
issue of pessimism in their political understanding. Hence the paper will be arguing in favor of
the pessimism in the theory of both of the political theories and their dark representation of the
human nature. The idea of pessimism is based on the adoption of the negative aspects of the
character. In order to determine the pessimist nature of the political theory of Hobbes and
Machiavelli, it is important to consider their idea of the nature of man and the nature of the
political theory.
Discussion
Machiavelli and Hobbes, the two political figures of political realism help us to
understand the idea presented of human nature in two distinct ways (BBC, 2019). It is important
to note that the idea of as a political and social man differs in both of their understanding
however it has certain inherent similarities when it comes to the basic instinct of man. One of the
greatest political scientist and child of Renaissance is Niccolo Machiavelli highlighted the need
of developing a secular state and he clearly demonstrates the image of man in the famous book,
“Prince”. In case of the presentation of his human nature, he mentions that ruthless nature of the
Prince is the precondition to the unstable and transient nature of the it is further mentioned by
Machiavelli that state is the form of disorder and it is unstable and transient(Lucchese 2017). It
is the presentation of the nature and state is negative and harsh, chaotic (Rahe 2017). In case of
presentation of the human nature, it is important to note that the character and nature of man is

2HOBBES AND MACHIAVELLI, ARE THEY PESSIMIST THINKERS?
negative since he believed that the ultimate goals and purpose of man’s life is self-serving and
acquisition. Critics have argued that the nature of man as selfish and self-indulgent is the
pessimist representation of their moral character. Even though there are instance where he
mentions about the ability of man to shape nature and construct republics by allowing them to
enhance the condition of man in a holistic manner (Winter 2018). Hence there is criticism that
highlights the issue that in case of defining Machiavelli in pessimist or optimist terms, he can be
placed in either side. However that does not mean that there is not much mention of the
pessimist idea of man. Machiavelli mentions in the book “Prince”, human nature is full of ego
and it is selfish in nature. He highlights that human being has evil nature which is only focused
on the things like greed, self-procurement, and sensual pleasures. It is portrayed as evil and
negative. It can be derived from this understanding that the nature of man according to him is not
positive and it is centered on the understanding of dark side of the human nature (Nederman
2018). It is also mentioned that human being are selfish to the extent that they care only about
their own interest and their family and no one else. Human being according to him can reach
upto any significance to reach his goals and a person can even murder the family members in
order to safeguard their priorities(Nederman 2018). Hence the role of the supreme authority is
important since it will act as the binding force of the society. Since it is acknowledged that
human being thinks themselves first and e about others later, it is important that they are guided
by the supreme authority. The role and power of the Prince has been discussed in the ruthless
manner where it is justified that the ruler has the power to become ruthless as people are capable
of ruling themselves and there is need to such authority.
For Thomas Hobbes, one of the founders of the modern political thought made similar
separation of the political and the religion by the use of science rather than the use of history as a

3HOBBES AND MACHIAVELLI, ARE THEY PESSIMIST THINKERS?
model. In his Social contract, the theorist made an analysis of the nature and the political
authority (Lang Jr 2016). In his statement of the nature of the human being, it is to be mentioned
that he portrays human being as solitary, nasty, brutish and short and it is argued that they are
laws in the state of nature which is poor and brutish. His explanation of the state of nature is the
accepted as the nature of mankind. It is also argued that the human beings are essentially self-
interested being (Collins 2016). He gave further insight into the idea of liberty and the nature of
the political system. It can be argued that the role of the state in protecting the individual at the
cost of personal liberty of the individual is narrow in nature (Fish 2017). In case of arguing the
nature of man and the vision of the government, as human being are portrayed as power hungry
being and the nature of power is actually to gain power in the society. There are four pillars of
this understanding, the idea of war, competition, power and glory which binds the evil quality of
people. Hobbes is a pessimist in his understanding of nature of man due to the portrayal of one
side of the man and ignoring the other. Men are always portrayed in the power seeking and
fighting in nature. It is to be noted that state of war is accepted as natural which is based on the
understanding that war is inevitable in case of man and it is unexpected that men will peacefully
coexist with each other (Hobbes 2016). It is to be mentioned here that the role of man in
protection and promotion of peaceful co-existence is not been accepted by Hobbes as a nature of
things. He has highlighted the state of nature as natural where people are incapable of ruling
themselves. However it is not to deny that he has faith in the ideal government. He is of the
opinion that the use of power is justified in case of unification of people.
Hence it could be considered form the above discussion that the presentation of human
nature and nature of state is pessimist in compared to the theorists. Unlike other theorists like
Hegel, both Machiavelli and Hobbes stats the discussion with the analysis of the human nature

4HOBBES AND MACHIAVELLI, ARE THEY PESSIMIST THINKERS?
and developing the formation of the ideal form of state on the same analysis. Hence it could be
argued that the inherent nature of human being as negative has been the sole reason behind the
formulation of the negative idea of state where the use of power in any absolute form is justified.
It is the inability of both of the theorists that they portrayed the image of human being in the
negative way. They share certain commonality of in the rime period they lived and it is mostly
focused on the social contract between human being and the government. While Machiavelli
concentrated on the formation of the powerful ruler who would install himself as the epitome of
power. Hence it can be argued that Machiavelli and Hobbes highlights similar nature of thought,
while Hobbes in leviathan proposes the state of nature as conflicting. It is important to note here
that human being are the not represented as the preserver of peace instead it is the always in the
state of conflict. It is accepted that human being in any form of society or under any author
cannot always aspire to wage war even when the interests are conflicting and contradictory. It is
also important to consider the fact that nature of man is necessary seen as the political man and
the idea of peaceful coexistence has been not considered. Moreover Hobbes and Machiavelli
considered nature of the political authority as the sole protector of the interest of man and do not
necessarily consider the inherent potential of man to resolve the societal threats and clashes of
interests.
Conclusion
It can be concluded form the above discussion that the representation of the human being
in the negative way indicates that human being within the context of the society are not capable
of ruling themselves and it is the need of the supreme authority which will determine peaceful
correlation between all the elements of the society. hence it is to be concluded form the above

5HOBBES AND MACHIAVELLI, ARE THEY PESSIMIST THINKERS?
discussion that both of them, Hobbes and Machiavelli have represented men through the
negatives characteristics like rivalry, evil, anger, jealousy and power seeking, They have failed to
acknowledge the positive side of the character. In case of the political authority, both of the
political theorists have supported the idea of a powerful state with the source of all power and
gave less importance to the successful resolve of conflict of people.

6HOBBES AND MACHIAVELLI, ARE THEY PESSIMIST THINKERS?
References
BBC. (2019). BBC Radio 4 - In Our Time, Hobbes. [online] Available at:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p003k9l1 [Accessed 27 Mar. 2019].
BBC. (2019). BBC Radio 4 - In Our Time, Machiavelli and the Italian City States. [online]
Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p004y26p [Accessed 27 Mar. 2019].
BBC. (2019). BBC Radio 4 - Machiavelli: Devil or Democrat?. [online] Available at:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03hvn6l [Accessed 27 Mar. 2019].
BBC. (2019). BBC Radio 4 - The Forum, Machiavelli - Master of Power. [online] Available at:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b092hsdv [Accessed 27 Mar. 2019].
BBC. (2019). BBC World Service - A History of Political Thought, Thomas Hobbes. [online]
Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p039712f [Accessed 27 Mar. 2019].
Collins, J., 2016. Thomas Hobbes’s Ecclesiastical History. In The Oxford Handbook of Hobbes.
Fish, S., 2017. Thomas Hobbes: The Father of Law and Literature. Law & Literature, 29(1),
pp.151-156.
Hobbes, T., 2016. Thomas Hobbes: Leviathan (Longman Library of Primary Sources in
Philosophy). Routledge.
Lang Jr, A.F. and Slomp, G., 2016. Thomas Hobbes: theorist of the law.
Lucchese, F.D., 2017. Machiavelli and constituent power: The revolutionary foundation of
modern political thought. European Journal of Political Theory, 16(1), pp.3-23.

7HOBBES AND MACHIAVELLI, ARE THEY PESSIMIST THINKERS?
Nederman, C.J. and Bogiaris, G., 2018. Niccolò Machiavelli. In The History of Evil in the Early
Modern Age (pp. 63-78). Routledge.
Rahe, P.A., 2017. Machiavelli and the Modern Tyrant.”. Machiavelli on Liberty and Conflict,
pp.207-31.
Winter, Y., 2018. Machiavelli and the Orders of Violence. Cambridge University Press.