A Compare and Contrast of Thomas Moores Utopia and Machiavelli?s The Prince

Just vs. Viable

To be just is to be fair and honorable. Kids are taught that if you are kind and just you will excel and be successful. But life’s not fair and being just doesn’t necessary mean that a society will stand the test of time and be able to grow. The two different societies introduced in More’s Utopia and Machiavelli’s The Prince are very different and although More’s Utopian society would be considered more just then Machiavelli’s society. Machiavelli’s society is more realistic and more likely to be viable.

Leadership is a major issue when it comes to whether or not a society is going to be viable. It seems that if the leader is a good leader, a leader that puts his people first and wants the best for his country, then the land and the society should flourish. But if the leader is a bad leader, a power driven leader, a leader who puts himself first, and lets his people starve while he and his nobles live in excess, then the society and land will not flourish. This idea is not demonstrated to us in Utopia or The Prince; it seems like the exact opposite.

Utopia has a more democratic government. Each set of households elects someone and then those elects elect others, and although there is a prince they still have the power to throw him out of office if he’s involved in any wrong doing. And although their prince doesn’t have as much power as a prince in Machiavelli’s writing the prince in Utopia serves a different purpose. The prince in Utopia is there to provide stability. With the syphogrants and tranibors changing annually the stability of a constant figure head is needed. More describes the government as follows

“Once a year, every group of thirty households elects an official,

Formerly called the syphogrant, but now called the phylarch. Over

Every group of ten syphogrants with their households there is another official, once called the tranibor but now known as the head phylarch. All the syphogrants, two hundred in number, are brought together to elect the prince. They take an oath to choose the man they think best qualified; and then by secret ballot they elect they prince from among four men nominated by the people of the four sections of the city. The prince holds office for life, unless he is suspected of aiming at a t...

... middle of paper ...

...s. But this society was in no way more just then the Utopian society, although this society was more viable. They had what it took to last, to grow and to flourish.

Both societies have there good points and both societies have their flaws. More imagined a new society, even though it still carried some remnants of the one he knew. And the Utopian society looked great on paper; they were very just and honorable people. But when examined in depth it falls apart. This society wouldn’t last people don’t think that way. Machiavelli criticized and critiqued history, he took things he knew and said how they could be made better for future societies. Except societies and societal ideas evolve, ideas that worked then don’t always work now. His society was based on backstabbing and deceitfulness, appearing virtuous but not actually being virtuous. So although his society would have lasted, it was far from just. But this is the opinion looking back at these texts. When these texts were written More and Machiavelli both thought these were the ideal societies. But if More and Machiavelli knew what people know now would their societal ideas still be what they were?