Comparing More's Utopia, Machiavelli's The Discourses, and Hobbes' The Leviathan

Hobbes’ Leviathan and Locke’s Second Treatise of Government comprise critical works in the lexicon of political science theory. Both works expound on the origins and purpose of civil society and government. Hobbes’ and Locke’s writings center on the definition of the “state of nature” and the best means by which a society develops a systemic format from this beginning. The authors hold opposing views as to how man fits into the state of nature and the means by which a government should be formed and what type of government constitutes the best. This difference arises from different conceptions about human nature and “the state of nature”, a condition in which the human race

"But my hope is to write a book that will be useful . . . and so I thought it sensible to go straight to a discussion of how things are in real life and not waste time with a discussion of an imaginary world; for the gap between how people actually behave and how they ought to behave is so great that anyone who ignores everyday reality in order to live up to an ideal will soon discover he has been taught how to destroy himself, not preserve himself."

tain power. The minor details do not matter. The importance lies in the fact that in a monarchy

Thomas More’s book, Utopia, was constructed to criticize aspects of European life during the 1500s. One issue that More evaluates is the subject of politics and war. War during this time was used to gain territory or increase the ruler’s power. The Utopians are a peaceful group of citizens that rarely have any altercations occurring upon their island. They have a strict daily schedule that provides a minute amount of time for leisure, resulting in a low rate of problems. So why does More bring up the issue of war, if the people of Utopia infrequently misbehave? More analyzes this issue to exemplify how war was implemented in Europe under the reign of King Henry VIII. In addition, more describes the Utopians’ preparations when they engage in war. More wrote Utopia to provide the citizens of Europe with a source of hope for a new outlook on life.

John Locke and Thomas Hobbes are often viewed as opposites, great philosophers who disagreed vehemently on the nature and power of government, as well as the state of nature from which government sprung. Hobbes’ Leviathan makes the case for absolute monarchy, while Locke’s Second Treatise of Government argues for a more limited, more representative society. However, though they differ on certain key points, the governments envisioned by both philosophers are far more alike than they initially appear. Though Hobbes and Locke disagree as to the duration of the social contract, they largely agree in both the powers it grants to a sovereign and the state of nature that compels its creation.

In defining political legitimacy, many theorists put forth a distinct set of values that frame their view on the authorities’ right to rule and citizen’s obligation to follow. Theorists such as Hobbes and Locke, both of their account on political legitimacy might look quite similar at first glance, because each theorized about the nature of mankind and the right political systems that would meet the needs of individuals. However, in Hobbes’ perspective, political authority does not pre-exist in individual’s state of nature, rather, it is created by the social contract and serves to ensure self-preservation which is threatened in a state of nature. In contrast, Locke thought that the social contract does not create authority, but that political authority is embodied in individuals and pre-exists in the state of nature, all individuals thus have the moral obligation to respect those rights made by authorities. In my point of view, Locke’s idea sounds more compelling than that of Hobbes’, because it allows individuals to have their own liberties free from an oppressive sovereign and prevents danger posed by absolute freedom.

John Locke (1689) and Thomas Hobbes (2010) share a common underlying concern: establishing a social contract between the government and the governed. To be legitimate, government must rest in the final analysis on the “consent” of the governed, they maintain. They also share a common view of humanity as prone to selfishness (Morgan, 2011 p. 575-800). Given the modern era, Hobbes views of the state of nature and government seem antiquated; no longer do the masses wish to be subservient to anyone man without question. Lockean principals are now the base for today’s modern, just, prosperous and free states.

Human nature and its relevance in determining behaviors, predictions, and conclusions has caused dispute among philosophers throughout the ages. Political philosophy with its emphasis on government legitimacy, justice, laws, and rights guided the works of the 17th and 18th century philosophical writings of Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Through Thomas Hobbes world-renowned publication Leviathan and Rousseau’s discourses on basic political principals and concepts, each man validated their thoughts on human nature and what is required for a successful society within their respective government confines. The distinct differences between Hobbes and Rousseau’s opinions on the natural state of man frame the argument of the different

When examining the problems of English society, More points out that another of the main contributing factors is the centralized kingship of the country. More says, "it is generally agreed that a king can do no wrong, however much he may want to, because everything belongs to him, including every human being in the country...". (More, 61) Because the king has so much power over his country and his land, there is nothing to assure that the people under his command can lead happy and healthy lives.

What justifies political legitimacy in a society? By comparing the two readings assigned one can discuss the differences in political theories expressed by both John Locke and Thomas Hobbes. In, Leviathan, by Thomas Hobbes, and in, The Second Treatise of Government, by John Locke different theories of political legitimacy and definitions of the state of nature are described. The following paragraphs analyze multiple different points that are imperative to understanding these political theories.

During the later middle ages, from ca. 1300 to 1500 A.D., one can see the rise of humanism. Specially, one can see that the author of the book Utopia, Thomas More is a humanist. Thomas More, through his book, shows the readers a multitude of examples of humanism throughout his civilization, that can be closely related to events that were happening during this time period. One can see that Thomas More is a humanist through the ideas on luxury clothing, the economy, and slavery that were also large topics of debate during his time period.

Thomas More’s Utopia is a work of ambiguous dualities that forces the reader to question More’s real view on the concept of a utopian society. However, evidence throughout the novel suggests that More did intend Utopia to be the “best state of the commonwealth.” The detailed description of Utopia acts as Mores mode of expressing his humanistic views, commenting on the fundamentals of human nature and the importance of reason and natural law while gracefully combining the two seemingly conflicting ideals of communism and liberalism.

One of the main premises of Leviathan and The Prince is morality. Where morality comes from, how it affects people under a political structure and how human nature contributes or doesn’t to morality. Hobbes and Machiavelli differ widely on each subject. Machiavelli’s views on morality, based upon a literal interpretation of the satire The Prince, is very much a practical and realistic approach to the nature of morality and human nature. Hobbes’ views, based in Leviathan, are of a more idealistic nature, and my views are a little in between the two.

In his book Utopia, Thomas More utilizes several different rhetorical devices to not only describe Utopia as a place, but also to compare the commonwealth of Utopia to the current state of Europe at the time. One literary device used throughout the novel is tone. While there are several other literary devices that contribute to the reading of Utopia, tone is one of the most useful in determining the views of More as an author. In Utopia, more usually sustains a satirical tone, sometimes accompanied by irony, comedy, and ambiguity. These elements help to convey to the readers what More’s truly intended message is. More utilizes the device of tone in Utopia in order to showcase the fundamental differences between Utopian and European society during that time.

With these three authors, they all have the same opinion on the social contract. Thomas Hobbes, James Madison, and Plato all believed that having an absolute sovereign is what will make a society the most successful. This paper seeks to point out the distinct visons of absolute sovereignty that Hobbes, Madison, and Plato articulated by unpacking the central premises of each argument, pitting them against each other through comparing and contrasting.