“Love is held by a chain of obligation, which, because men are wicked, is broken at every opportunity for their own utility, but fear is held by a dread of punishment that never forsakes you.” ~Niccolo Machiavelli

Niccolo Machiavelli’s The Prince, a philosophical reference for aspiring Princes seeking the throne or that an existing Prince could use to establish and maintain his reign, establishes a cynical perspective on the concept of human nature and offers pragmatic remedies for dealing with men, who are “wicked and deceitful” by nature (Machiavelli 69).  Over a century later, political philosopher Thomas Hobbes followed Machiavelli, sharing a somewhat similarly pessimistic understanding of the human nature, describing the “natural condition of mankind” as being “poor, nasty, brutish, and short” (Hobbes 76).

Both philosophical texts share a likeness in their interpretations of man as distrustful by nature.  Yet, in contrast to The Prince wherein Machiavelli illustrates policy recommendations for a solitary state leader and does not specifically define human nature, Hobbes’ Leviathan is a more direct treatment of natural man, in which he pessimistically addresses the complexities of human society and other such forms of social interaction, including speech, religion, and conflict, while, contrary to Machiavelli, dismissing the very idea that any human goodness exists by nature.  Hobbes argues that there is no natural human good but that humanity’s pursuit of natural goals is actually, by nature, dangerous.

The individual philosophies of Machiavelli and Hobbes were both greatly influenced by the turbulent times in which they lived, for the former during years of relentless political conflict in Italy and for the latter after the chaotic English Civil War.  Still, while Machiavelli interprets natural man as distrustful, deceitful, and selfish, his philosophy is more pragmatic than strictly pessimistic, in that his recommendations are supposedly with the greater goal of establishing peace and security during disorderly times.

Moreover, while man is generally self-interested Machiavelli admits that man’s affection for others can be both won and lost, and is not necessarily always warlike and conflicting, as Hobbes argues is state of nature.  Furthermore, Machiavelli argues that man is usually content and happy so long as he is not victim of some terrible occurrence or set of negative circumstances (Machiavelli 66).  Contrary to Machiavelli’s belief that man has the ability to be content and happy, Hobbes’s more distrustful philosophy treats humanity as in a natural and unremitting state of war and conflict.  Another stark difference in interpretations of humanity is the belief in the changeability of human nature.

While Machiavelli believes human nature is changeable, or at least that a Prince can alter and influence the behavior of his subjects, Hobbes, considering that he details the absolute necessity of fundamental laws and a large and well-structured society in order to preserve security, believes that human nature is inflexible.  And so, while both texts are similar in their pessimistic perspective on human nature, Machiavelli’s philosophy tends to be more basic and pragmatic while not explicitly describing or explaining human nature, while Hobbes’ philosophy is much more cynical and offers a forthright interpretation of natural man.

Machiavelli’s The Prince is a series of political recommendations that, according to the author, would be advantageous for both aspiring and existing Princes to employ if they desire a secure reign of longevity.  Machiavelli’s advice centers on the pragmatic, strictly concerning what is both reasonable and effective for a leader to enforce during his political rule.  Unlike Aristotle, an ancient political philosopher who, in his works, established a concept of the ideal political scenario, while discussing concepts of virtue and morality, Machiavelli ignores “the ideal” while making no moral judgments and strictly focuses his philosophy upon practical and effective political rule.

While the Italian philosopher instructs the supposed reader-of-royalty on how to effectively deal with men – or, in other words, the Prince’s subjects – Machiavelli never details an explicit account of human nature.  And so, while the reader might be left to ponder Machiavelli’s concept of human nature without an outright explanation, his political advice establishes a fairly straightforward and distinctively cynical notion of natural man.

Without first stating it outright, Machiavelli sheds insight on his perspective on human nature, asserting that it is “a very natural and ordinary thing to desire and acquire” (Machiavelli 14).  The statement indicates Machiavelli’s belief that not only do men naturally “want” or “desire”, but, furthermore, that they also yearn for more than they possess (the natural desire to “acquire” more).  As men both “desire” and want to “acquire”, not only is Machiavelli’s natural man greedy, he is also self-interested; as he wants to acquire that which he does not possess, but that another man possesses, Machiavelli’s natural man is concerned more with himself than others.  And as men are naturally self-interested, Machiavelli says that are not to be blamed for wrongdoing in acquiring “more” when such opportunities present themselves; rather, such men are “praised” (Machiavelli 14-15).

Perhaps the single most insightful exhibit of Machiavelli’s perspective on human nature comes with the question of “…whether it is better to be feared than loved, or the contrary” (Machiavelli 65).  Ideally, one would prefer to be loved, accepted by others, while at the same time being feared so as to be safe from potential enemies.  Yet such an ideal condition is nearly unattainable.  So Machiavelli, interpreting the question strictly in terms of effectiveness, argues that it is “much safer” for a Prince to be feared than loved because keeping subjects fearful ensures a necessary degree of security (Machiavelli 66).

While being feared prevents rebellious behavior and backstabbers, Machiavelli states that being loved produces a measure of vulnerability, all due to the nature of men.  Speaking generally of human nature, Machiavelli claims that men are “… ungrateful, fickle, pretenders and dissemblers, evaders of danger, [and] eager for gain” (Machiavelli 66).  While Machiavelli has earlier illustrated that men are generally self-interested, here he states outright that men are ungrateful, deceitful and selfish, phony and wretched, not worthy of trust nor admiration.  And so, it would be safer to be feared than loved, for man’s affection for others – namely, affection for the Prince himself – can be both won and lost.

Machiavelli claims that men hold the potential of being content and happy, so long they are not suffering.  Yet, while natural man may be dependable and trusted during safe and prosperous times, Machiavelli states that men will quickly return to their selfish, deceitful, and profit-driven ways during times of adversity (Machiavelli 66).  And so, Machiavelli’s previously veiled inferences regarding human nature are seemingly expunged, having portrayed his idea of the true form of natural man, and recommending how a Prince could avoid falling victim to his subjects’ natural state.

While Machiavelli states that man has the ability to be content, Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan is a philosophical treatment of humanity as in a natural and unremitting state of war and conflict.  Hobbes argues that all aspects of human nature can be understood as having originated from materialist principles.  Hobbes depicts the natural condition of mankind – that which he calls the state of nature – as inherently violent and driven by rampant fear.

The Hobbesian state of nature is one of “war of every man against every man,” a violent and chaotic situation where individuals constantly pursue killing each other out of fear (Hobbes 88).  The natural state of mankind is so detestable and so miserable, Hobbes contends that man is led to naturally want to seek out some form of peace.  Hobbes argues that the ideal peace – note, not the practical, like Machiavelli, but the ideal – would be achieved with the establishment of the “leviathan” through his theory of the social contract.

The title of Hobbes’s work, “leviathan,” represents an analogy of the state as an artificial animal.  Hobbes argues, contrary to philosophers like Aristotle, that politics is not natural, but rather, that nature and politics are completely separate (Hobbes 3).  According to Aristotle, man is a natural political animal; yet to Hobbes, speech is a human invention used to classify human thought, with politics being an artificial product of it (Hobbes 16).  Nearly every aspect of Hobbesian philosophy classifies human characteristics as exclusively negative.  Even thoughts are devious and sinister, which Hobbes refers to as the “scouts and spies of desires” (Hobbes 41).

Hobbes’s theory for peace emerges from this pessimistic perspective on human nature.  Hobbesian human nature is an amorphous conglomeration of peculiar, mechanical appetites, fear, and hatred, reconciled by constant conflict and repeated power struggles (Hobbes 58).  Because the idea of “human appetite” is mechanical and natural earthly resources are finite, when two individuals have an appetite for the same resource the natural result is war (Hobbes 80).  Even though men may differ individually, Hobbes contends that all humans are naturally equal, because no one man possesses more natural power over another.

In the Hobbesian state of nature, where it is a constant state of war and conflict for every natural man against the other, Hobbes argues that no security is possible and life is driven by complete fear.  As Hobbes illustrates the concept of natural law and the social contract toward the ideal goal of ensuring peace, similarly, Machiavelli’s The Prince offers political recommendations that a ruler can use to avoid conflict and strife.  Indeed, both philosophical texts share a similar perspective in interpreting man as deceitful and selfish by nature.

Yet a number of stark differences also emerge upon analysis.  First, the “state of nature” upon which Hobbes bases his entire philosophy is admittedly a fabrication of history that he theorizes could exist in a world without modern civilization.  To the contrary, Machiavelli attempts to back some his political theorizations with historical evidence, although he certainly does not use any evidence to substantiate his claims about the distrustful nature of mankind.

In fact, Machiavelli never so much as actually defines human nature, but only discusses it in some detail from the perspective of a monarch who wishes to establish a successful reign.  So, one must question to what extent the interpretation of human nature in The Prince is Machiavelli’s, or what could simply be the philosopher’s attempt to persuade his target audience.

Regardless of Machiavelli’s intentions, it is clear that the philosopher is offering a series of pragmatic solutions to political problems as existed during unstable years of conflict in 16th century Italy.  Similarly, Hobbes offers prospects for peaceful society during the English Civil War, however his Leviathan is not practical, but an ideal scenario.  Similar in theory, but different in detail, Machiavelli’s The Prince offered Thomas Hobbes with a controversial perspective on human nature, setting the basis for his Leviathan.

While Hobbes’s philosophy on human nature is a departure from the perspective offered by Machiavelli, both philosophers are in agreement that there is indeed some form of human nature, and that the utilization of political philosophy is a necessary approach toward rectifying human imperfection and attempting to establish a more lasting peace.

[fblike]