Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Compare and contrast between Machiavelli’s The Prince and Plato’s The Republic
Importance of leadership in a country
Importance of leadership in the country
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
What kind of leader do we want running our country? This will be an important question to ask because in about two years the country will have to decide on a new leader. Most likely, typical politicians will be running for office. These politicians are most likely liars, cheaters, selfish, and greedy; however, aren’t we all? In today’s current world of politics, it has been said by the American Psychology Association that the most successful politicians have “Three modal personality characteristics distinguished politicians, with their significantly higher levels of Energy, Agreeableness, and Social Desirability, from the general public.” (APA PsycNet). In Machiavelli’s guide, The Prince, he gives a recipe for the most practical state. His …show more content…
Machiavelli’s views are realistic but pessimistic on what makes the ideal leader. He states that the ruler must appear to have strong virtues, but cannot rely on them. The Prince must always do what is best for the state, even if it is unethical. In Plato’s The Republic, his ideal state includes a class system. Working class people are on the bottom, the military is in the middle, and the top class is reserved for the leaders. These leaders are always philosophers because only philosophers can see the true forms, which include goodness. In this ideal state, Plato makes it clear that all the philosophers are to be loved. In Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations, he believes that a ruler should be respected. He wrote these things down only for him to be able to cope with the world around him. He analyzes his own judgment and clearly states that rulers should be well respected. There are three types of leadership as shown in Plato’s The Republic, Machiavelli’s The Prince, and Marcus Aurelius’ …show more content…
The people in the lower class are the people who love material items. The military are the brave people, who protect the state, but could never lead because of their irrational decisions. However the philosopher kings are the men of the state that are to be loved by the rest of the people. Jane Yarbrough, from the University of Wisconsin said, “The word philosophy comes from the Greek language and means "the love of wisdom." Socrates was a lover of wisdom, a seeker of truth. His primary mission, as revealed in Plato's writings, was to discover that which is true and good about human nature.” (Yarbrough). In other words, Plato believed that all human beings were inherently good, unless acted upon negatively from an outside force. Philosophers are people that do not let the negative obstruct their objective to rule for the people in the ideal state. In The Republic, Plato states, “The philosopher whose dealings are with divine order himself acquires the characteristics of order and divinity.” (Plato). These characteristics that deal with the best of virtues promote love throughout the state. With this love that is expressed, the type of leadership focuses on the love from the people. The people gain their love from the philosophers and in return the citizens love the philosopher
Machiavelli believes that a government should be very structured, controlled, and powerful. He makes it known that the only priorities of a prince are war, the institutions, and discipline. His writings describes how it is more important for a prince to be practical than moral. This is shown where he writes, "in order to maintain the state he is often obliged to act against his promise, against charity, against humanity, and against religion" (47). In addition, Machiavelli argues that a prince may have to be cunning and deceitful in order to maintain political power. He takes the stance that it is better for the prince to be feared than loved. His view of how a government should run and his unethical conduct are both early signs of dictatorship.
As he begins to conclude, Machiavelli states that the prince: “should think about avoiding those things which make him hated and despised.” (Mach 48) Although these lack any withstanding moral values, they are effective in the sense that they better serve their purpose. Machiavelli was seeking to display a way to hold political power by any means possible not a utopian state. This may mean malicious acts, imprisonment, and torture, or it may mean the utilization of power to achieve a common good. Machiavelli doesn’t elaborate on this. He concentrates on a realistic approach towards government, as he remains concerned with the establishment and protection of power.
Many societal ills in a given culture can be attributed to the pride that develops in leaders and the aggressive effect this nature has on the need for personal gain. In his work The Republic, Plato spends a great deal of time outlining his vision of a society in which man's arrogant and competitive nature is unable to root itself into the government of the city, thus creating a completely just and good society. Nevertheless, even Plato realized that because of the inevitable influence of man's lust for power, no society could retain a perfectly just government forever. As man's greed overcomes the integrity of the "healthy city", oppression will take root. The inherent arrogance grows until the leader becomes an embodiment of injustice, what Plato calls in The Republic a tyrant. The rule of a tyrant can directly affect the lives and well-bring of every man under the unjust leader, as is demonstrated by Agamemnon in The Iliad. Homer's masterpiece is a perfect example of how egotism and a need for power over another can compromise the well being of an entire army. Agamemnon's reactions to the events and people who surround him in The Iliad prove that he possesses many of the characteristics of the tyrannical leader Plato describes in The Republic.
...gime seizing power or trampling their rights and stealing their possessions, they can live in a state of contentment, and even happiness. As for the populace's role in government, anyone can have an impact on the game of power if they know what to do and have the support to do it. Power is not restricted to one type of people or one class, but is "up for grabs" and waiting for the boldest to seize it. For Machiavelli, the people are more than just a mass to be divided and placed in a proper order, but a powerful force that must be considered and respected by the one who would rule over them. But for both Plato and Machiavelli, government seems to be a necessary and natural state under which humankind can operate and survive.
Many people in history have written about ideal rulers and states and how to maintain them. Perhaps the most talked about and compared are Machiavelli's, The Prince and Plato's, The Republic. Machiavelli lived at a time when Italy was suffering from its political destruction. The Prince, was written to describe the ways by which a leader may gain and maintain power. In Plato?s The Republic, he unravels the definition of justice. Plato believed that a ruler could not be wholly just unless one was in a society that was also just. His state and ruler was made up to better understand the meaning of justice. It was not intended to be practiced like that of Machiavelli's. Machiavelli, acknowledging this, explains that it is his intention to write something that is true and real and useful to whoever might read it and not something imaginary,"?for many have pictured republics and principalities which in fact have never been known or seen?(Machiavelli 375)." Therefore, because one ruler is realistic and the other imaginary, the characteristics of Machiavelli's ruler versus Plato's ruler are distinctly different.
The Republic is Plato’s notion of an ideal state. Within the state, there is a hierarchal class system, which provides stability among the classes. Stability is achieved when each class performs their own duties and jobs, and does not interfere with the business of others. There are three hierarchal classes, the guardians and philosopher-kings, the auxiliaries, and the working class. With an increase in the power of the auxiliary class, a system was needed that would control the morals of the guardian class. The guardians are trained up through a strict curriculum which consists of music and gymnastics. Music is used to educate the soul, and gymnastics is used to train the body. They act on behalf of the good of the whole state, because through their education and their pursuit of knowledge, they have the moral capacity to seek “the good”.(505a)
He notes that “it is appropriate for the rational part to rule, since it is really wise and exercises foresight on behalf of the whole soul” (Plato, 117, 441e). An effective ruler, in Plato’s view, is someone whose reason governs over his or her appetite with the aid of spirit. Plato believes that the philosopher guardian class can achieve the balance, so only they are capable of ruling. It allows them to govern with reason, and make decisions for the good of the
Therefore, a ideal leader would control every aspect of the state. Such a leader would put in effect policies that would benefit his self interests such as, gaining, maintaining, and expanding his political power. Also, it states that a leader should not allow morality and virtues to get in the way of leading. Machiavelli believes that moral and virtue are merely products of the imagination and should be discarded. It even states that a man who desires to act virtuously in every way will come to grief among those who are not virtuous.
The reasoning is: if you know the good, then you will do the good. Therefore, philosopher rulers are by far the most apt to rule. In The Republic, Plato builds around the idea of Philosopher Rulers.
In The Prince, Machiavelli separates ethics from politics. His approach to politics, as outlined in The Prince, is strictly practical. Machiavelli is less concerned with what is right and just, and instead with what will lead to the fortification of the government and the sustainment of power. Machiavelli believed that a ruler should use any means necessary to obtain and sustain power. He says, “…people judge by outcome. So if a ruler wins wars and holds onto power, the means he has employed will always be judged honorable, and everyone will praise them” (Machiavelli, 55). According to Machiavelli, the ends of an action justify the means (Machiavelli, 55). His motivation for these views in The Prince was the reunification of the Italian city-states (Machiavelli, 78-79). Machiavelli wanted Italy to return to its glory of the Roman Empire (Machiavelli 78-79). Some of the beliefs of Machiavelli could be perceived as evil and cruel, but he found them necessary. Machiavelli was not concerned with making people happy. His purpose was outcome and success, and in his opinion, the only way to be successful was to be realistic. These views of Machiavelli could classify him as one of the earliest modern
Plato’s view of division of labour is divided into three types of peoples’ task in life which are workers as farmers, military type and guardians. Actually, the ruling task of Plato’s Republic is the guardian’s responsible who had achieved the greatest wisdom or knowledge of good. Due to that, Plato claims that “philosopher must become kings or those now who called kings must genuinely and adequately philosophise’’ (Nussbaum1998, p.18). However, people argue about the reasons that the philosopher should rule the city, while the philosophers prefer to gain knowledge instead of power, thus they don’t seek this authority. Therefore, the argument should alter to why the philosophers are the best ruler to govern people. Indeed, Plato states much evidence to prove his view. Firstly, these kinds of kings are interested in simple life and helping people for better communication. Secondly, as Plato points out that each type of workers has a deficiency and conflict in his erotic attachments such as a worker is a lover of money, but the philosopher is a devotee of wisdom and knowledge. Thirdly, their disapproving of being a king comes from their fear of being unjust (Nussbaum, 1998).Not only these evidence does Plato claim, but he also adds the characteristics of being a king and the education system of philosophy.
Plato’s thoughts about power and reason are much different than Aristotle. Plato looked at the meaning of justice and different types of governments. Plato looked into four different types of governments
Notwithstanding the two philosophers’ different views on abstract concepts, Machiavelli’s virtù to fortuna is comparable to Plato’s Justice to Good. Each philosopher grants his ruler with a specific trait that deviates from the leader’s acquired knowledge of abstract concepts. Under their beliefs, the best ruler is the one who conforms to this virtuous trait--for Plato, Justice (Plato 519b-c), and for Machiavelli, virtù (Machiavelli, Prince 29). These traits then extend to a multitude of characteristics that define the careful instruction both philosophers laid out and that will allow the leader to directly change society into a worthy political
In Plato’s Republic, the main argument is dedicated to answering Glaucon and Adeimantus, who question the reason for just behavior. They argue it is against one’s self-interest to be just, but Plato believes the behavior is in fact in one’s self-interest because justice is inherently good. Plato tries to prove this through his depiction of an ideal city, which he builds from the ground up, and ultimately concludes that justice requires the philosopher to perform the task of ruling. Since the overall argument is that justice pays, it follows that it would be in the philosopher’s self-interest to rule – however, Plato also states that whenever people with political power believe they benefit from ruling, a good government is impossible. Thus, those who rule regard the task of ruling as not in their self-interest, but something intrinsically evil. This is where Plato’s argument that justice is in one’s self-interest is disturbed. This paper will discuss the idea that justice is not in one’s self-interest, and thus does not pay.
Plato, Aristotle and Machiavelli have spent their lives in assertion of which form of government is good and who should be ruler, what type of ...