Hobbes And Machiavelli

3375 Words14 Pages
The form of government known as republicanism invoked different ideas for the respective philosopher’s Hobbes and Machiavelli. While Machiavelli praises many republican notions, Hobbes dismisses them arguing a republic government is not ideal in his aim of preserving the people through the limitation of warfare. By contrast, Machiavelli implements many republican views on liberty and greatness. Still, Machiavelli’s perception of republicanism is redefined and defers in some ways particularly in preserving the common good. After assessing both attitudes towards the republic, I believe that Hobbes government was the most suitable because it is the most effective in the preservation of human life, which is essentially the purpose of a government. However, before going further, the details of Hobbes and Machiavelli’s corresponding notions on republicanism, one must first outline what this form of government really is. In essence, republicanism is following the principles of a republican governing system. Thus, a republic is the concept of the people taking control of the government system. In contrast to a monarchy or hereditary rule, a republic system bases the majority of their decisions on laws. This form of government had emerged in Regnum Italicum, by the end of the twelfth century and stressed that the status of the chief magistrates who controlled cities would have no higher a status than the people who had elected them. This was the period in which there was a rise in civic humanism and the people had felt that an elective government like republicanism was better than a monarchical government or rule. Furthermore, the city ruled by a republic form of government would be necessitated by laws so that the city could attain its highest goals. In this sense there was this belief that the attainment of the goals could be done through glory and greatness. With
Open Document