Machiavellian and Hobbesian Critique of Plato's Republic

Machiavellian and Hobbesian Critique of Plato’s Republic

        Many would say the Machiavelli, Hobbes, and Plato were some of the world’s greatest political philosophers, and I could agree with them. This semester we read books from all three philosophers and it was easy to see why they were the front-runners on politics in philosophy. This essay will look at what I think are the most significant similarities and differences between Machiavelli and Plato as well as Hobbes and Plato.  So as not to confuse the reader, I will break it down as follows; first I’ll discuss the differences between Machiavelli’s views and Plato’s views, second, I will discuss what views Machiavelli and Plato share. Once done with the compare and contrast of Machiavelli and Plato, I will do the same for Hobbes and Plato.         

        We can see many differences in the beliefs of Machiavelli and Plato just based on one of each of their writings. The first difference I’d like to point out is that Plato believed in just rulers who rule via moral virtue, basically their ruling were based on their moral compass.  Machiavelli, on the other hand, ruled by what he called “virtu.” Virtu is whatever is in the state’s best interest, not of moral character.  Here we can see that Plato and Machiavelli have two different ideas driving their rulers decision-making.  Plato says that a ruler can never be unjust and a man who shows unjustness shows no skill. He also says that unjustness destroys individuals and so the state is also destroyed. A just ruler must behave the same at all times. There should be no difference in their actions in situation because no matter what a ruler is always just. On the contrary, Machiavelli says a ruler is justified in doing whatever he needs to do to maintain the country, even if that means doing unjust things. He believed a good ruler’s most important responsibility was to preserve his country first. He basically promotes violence but justifies it by saying the actions are virtuous in that they are what is best for the country, circling back to his “virtu.”

        Machiavelli and Plato have different views on how to govern as well. Plato believes that government needs to directly interfere with the people so as to make their lives more virtuous. He thought that the less free will they have, the less likely they are to have issues and cause chaos. Though Machiavelli’s assertion is that the people should be generally left alone so as to facilitate the rulers continued support from the people. His belief was based on the principle that if people are not bothered by their rulers, they generally are not going to have issues. These are obviously two polar opposite belief systems and might make one believe that their relative political theories are incompatible, but we can also find similarities in their beliefs.

        Plato introduced a lot of ideas that Machiavelli would have liked. Machiavelli had a belief that a ruler must know what do to and must be able to do what is needed of him. Plato had guardians who were the most about toe rule and most fit to govern. They knew how to make the tough decisions and were willing to make the necessary sacrifices for the good of the polis. Machiavelli would support a strong, enlightened ruler. Both Plato and Machiavelli knew that the ruler having complete power in every situation is what was necessary, though they had different rationales behind their beliefs. Plato rationalized his teachings by saying that the only people fit to rule are those that do, so therefore they should have all the power. For Machiavelli, the ruler acts in the interest of people via himself. Furthermore, Machiavelli and Plato agree that virtue is needed to create a good civilization. Without virtue all cities would fall if its rulers were unjust.

        We can now look at Hobbes views and Plato’s views in the same manner.

        Hobbes and Plato had significantly different views about the nature of human beings. Plato said that human beings want what is intrinsically good. Though a person is capable of committing horrible actions, this is a generalization of appetites and desires rather than a fundamental flaw. He thinks that human beings want what is best and endeavor to listen to the higher calling towards good. Although Hobbes has a similar belief in the sense that he believes in the strong power of human appetites and aversions, he does not agree that humans want is good necessarily, but rather that they desire what best protects them. For Hobbes, man in the state of nature is living in a perpetual state of chaos because of his appetites. He does not believe that anyone can have possession of the truth and thus does not see the state as being an entity that is qualified to pass down moral or spiritual understanding.