Machiavelli And Kant's Ideal Analysis

Machiavelli and Kant Ideal Ruler

Niccolò Machiavelli and Immanuel Kant were both great thinkers of their time, however their ideas of a perfect ruler greatly differed. Both had very similar views in that they believed that the rulers were the only people who knew what was best for the general public and that it was even necessary to make decisions on the public’s behalf. On the other hand, Machiavelli believed that every decision that a ruler makes should benefit the greater good, while Kant felt that a ruler should treat his people as if they are children because they cannot understand what is good or bad for them. Despite having many differences, the similarities between both Kant’s and Machiavelli’s views are striking.

In The Prince, Machiavelli’s main philosophy was that no matter what, a ruler must put the needs of the greater good above anything else. If a ruler must commit genocide or go to war in order to preserve what is best for the greater good, then he must go as far as he feels necessary. It is also Machiavelli’s belief that a ruler be a complete contradiction; a ruler can be deceiving, yet seem completely trust worthy; he is frugal while appearing extremely giving; he should seem

very fair, while being brutal. This ideal ruler acts selfishly and selfless at the same time, in the aspect that they should do what they feel is right but also keep what is best for the people in mind. Machiavelli’s ideal is a tyrannical ruler who is focused on the future so much so that he does not care about the consequences at the present moment, which can end up becoming overly destructive.
“What is Enlightenment,” argued more that the welfare of the citizens was not a compelling reason to base matters of state power on. The basic premise of Kant’s idea was that all civilians should have no say at all in what goes on politically because they have no real understanding in state matters. Rulers should be completely accountable for all actions of the state, with not outside influence because that is immoral. Happiness is not a proper basis of law, so it should not be considered at all when coming up with any laws. The “universal principle of right” is not something that can be based on happiness, rather things such as freedom.
What the both ideal rulers have in common are that they should put first what they believe is right. These rulers have a sort of ego complex because they do whatever they feel is right without the consent of the majority that they are governing. The ruler believes that he knows exactly what the people need without a vote or any consultants because he thinks that he has extensive knowledge for exactly what is best for the land and people that he is ruling. The simple fact is that neither of these rulers are very realistic only because there is not one person smart enough or good enough strategically to know exactly what is right for the success of the land.
Another difference between the philosophies are Kant’s and Machiavelli’s views on lying.

Kant believed that one should never lie because one will never be able to know what the unintended consequences are of said lie. However, Machiavelli believed that it was sometimes necessary to lie because it could strengthen the effect that a ruler has over his people. Lying or not lying has a very large impact on what type of a ruler that a person will be. A lying ruler will have the potential to be a much more powerful ruler because of the deceit that he has accomplished, but he also has a much higher potential to get overthrown if his lies are found out. Kant’s ruler may be much more trust worthy, but there is only so much that a ruler that does as he sees best without

lying.
More than anything else, Kant and Machiavelli differed about what kind of government that a ruler should lead. Kant believed much more in socialist ideals because he thought that men working in the way that they did goes against the nature of man. He also felt that the means justify the ends and that man should “do what is right, though the world should perish.” Machiavelli preferred a toleration form of government because he felt that an ideal ruler knows exactly what is best for his people and he does not owe anyone an explanation or apology for what he does. He deeply felt that the ends justify all means that may have been used to get there, which is a very ruthless idea on its own.
Such ideal rulers do not come from these men alone, rather they are developed from the environment around them. Kant was writing at the rise of the Industrial Revolution and after Karl Marx, who greatly influenced his writing. The Industrial Revolution caused people to go to work in factories for twelve hour work days and the emergence of the middle class. This type of work was unlike anything that the world had ever seen before and there was an obvious toll that was taken on the workers as the economy quickly turned from agricultural to industrial. Machiavelli was in the midst of the Roman decline and revolution and was working under Cesare Borgia, who Machiavelli most likely thought needed to become more like his idea of an ideal ruler. This was a time of turmoil and there needed to be more structure in Rome, and Machiavelli felt that a strong ruler who was willing to do anything for the greater good would be the best kind of ruler. Ruthlessness for a good cause would be completely acceptable because stability was a rare commodity in Machiavelli’s time.
Both Machiavelli’s and Kant’s ideal rulers have similarities, but the philosophies behind both are very different. The ideal rulers in both cases is willing to do whatever they deem necessary regardless of their people. However, Machiavelli felt that it is expected of a ruler to lie while Kant believed it was never acceptable. They both had different opinions on the ideal form of statehood and their philosophies were greatly formed by their environment. Both men were great thinkers with ideals that they thought were greatly needed during their time.