Science:
Machiavelli was a man of action who drew his beliefs and conclusions from real life behaviors rather than hypothetical scenarios. He went out and observed how and why certain people acted the way that they did. He was a humanistic empiricist; he collected observations on people on their own terms. People have the ability to be good willed in nature, but he is only good willed when it is in his self nature to do so. Because of this, most men become evil.
Hobbes was a scholar and looked at politics through a scientific sense. He analysed politics through a scientific lense. He presented some of these ideas in de Corpore, where he talked about the philosophical method, mathematics, physics and human nature. He analyses politics on different levels. He reduced everything down to nature. This is called “resolutive-compositive”, and this means dividing it into parts and then composing …show more content…
No men can be trusted because we are all ruthless. Division among people leads to weakening of state and a weak state can be taken over by a stronger one. Shouldn’t apply moral standards of ruling to personal life. Must govern in real world not ideal world. Normally the word virtu talks about moral goodness, but Machiavelli uses it to describe rulers; he uses virtu to refer to personality traits that a ruler would have to acquire to achieve great things for his nation. Princes of high virtu are completely evil when need be. “for although the act condemns the doer, the end may justify him.” Moral viciousness should never be excluded as way to solve a problem, in a useful and sometimes detrimental way. People are more concerned with protecting their liberty than their rulers. In his book Discourses, he provided a psychological case that humans tend to prefer a republic because it seems more adaptable and applicable. In addition, rulers should follow what laws should be in place instead of what is in