The Consolation Of Philosophy: The Relationship Between Morality And Politics

1596 Words4 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Morals and politics

The Ancient-Modern debate focuses on the true definition of happiness and how one can fully attain it. It’s main principles encompass the following: The relationship between morality and politics, the purpose of politics, technical activity/necessary knowledge that one beholds, and human nature. According to the ancient view morality and virtue play the central role in ones conduct of their political and private affairs, and both Socrates’ and Boethius’ view is that in order to be an effective ruler one must be morally good; Plato believed that Philosophers were worthy rulers as well. While the modern view separates morality from politics and claims that there is no correlation between the two. Unlike Boethius, Machiavelli states that a person does not and should not be moral in order to be a ruler and if they are moral and righteous they will fail at being a successful leader. …show more content…

His perception of human nature is that: 1) we are all mortal, in other words, life is formulated with birth and death is eminent for every living being. 2) Humans are rational creatures and retain humanity and therefore should aim to be moral. 2) Reason is a special faculty, unique to only human beings that connects them to some truth about their own nature and essential concepts; these concepts are universal, timeless, and changeless. Also sensation, beauty, relationships, and possession all pass and die, they do not possess permanence. The only thing that remains with you is your reason. A grave philosophical error that is a source for supreme suffering for human beings is forgetting, ignoring, or acknowledging that things die and nothing lasts

Show More
Related

  • Machiavelli and Rousseau's Views on Human Nature and Government

    558 Words  | 2 Pages

    Machiavelli’s views were drastically different from other humanists at his time. He strongly promoted a secular society and felt morality was not necessary but stood in the way of a successfully governed state. He stated that people generally tended to work for their own best interests and gave little thought to the well being of the state. He distrusted citizens saying, “In time of adversity, when a state is in need of its citizens, there are few to be found.” In his writings in The Prince, he constantly questioned the citizens’ loyalty and warned for the leaders to be wary in trusting citizens. His radical and distrusting thoughts on human nature were derived out of concern for Italy’s then unstable government. Machiavelli also had a s...

    Read More

  • Nicomachean Ethics

    1016 Words  | 3 Pages

    Aristotle accepts that there is an agreement that this chief good is happiness, but that there is a disagreement with the definition of happiness. Due to this argument, men divide the good into the three prominent types of life: pleasure, political and contemplative. Most men are transfixed by pleasure; a life suitable for “beasts”. The elitist life (politics) distinguishes happiness as honour, yet this is absurd given that honour is awarded from the outside, and one’s happiness comes from one’s self. The attractive life of money-making is quickly ruled out by Aristotle since wealth is not the good man seeks, since it is only useful for the happiness of something else.

    Read More

  • The Grapes of Wrath: No One Man, But One Common Soul

    2393 Words  | 5 Pages

    than science or system.  His writing is warm, human, inconsistent. occasionally angry, but more often delighted with the joys associated with human life at its lowest levels (Holman 20).  This biological image of man. creates techniques and aspects of form capable of conveying this image of man with esthetic power and conviction; the power to overcome adversity. through collectiveness, or in this case, as one combined soul (Curley 224).

    Read More

  • The Use of Immorality in Order to Achieve Popular Rule

    1473 Words  | 3 Pages

    Overall Machiavelli’s perspective does seem harsh and cold at times, but he proves to be an avid supporter of popular rule throughout his writings. He believes in popular rule so strongly that he states it is acceptable to use immoral means to achieve a peaceful government. If the citizens are not happy and feel their ruler disregards their wishes then the populace could become enraged and therefore, the ruler would not be executing his power of indirect popular rule. Machiavelli states that in order to achieve the necessity of popular rule, a leader will have to step outside a moral sphere and do whatever it takes to achieve popular rule. Machiavelli puts clear and strict limits on acts of immorality in leadership. The use of immorality is only acceptable in order to achieve overall good for a government. Engaging in immorality for the sake of popular rule is justified because it is done to serve the people and the state successfully.

    Read More

  • Plato vs. Machiavelli

    1692 Words  | 4 Pages

    A longstanding debate in human history is what to do with power and what is the best way to rule. Who should have power, how should one rule, and what its purpose should government serve have always been questions at the fore in civilization, and more than once have sparked controversy and conflict. The essential elements of rule have placed the human need for order and structure against the human desire for freedom, and compromising between the two has never been easy. It is a question that is still considered and argued to this day. However, the argument has not rested solely with military powers or politicians, but philosophers as well. Two prominent voices in this debate are Plato and Machiavelli, both of whom had very different ideas of government's role in the lives of its people. For Plato, the essential service of government is to allow its citizens to live in their proper places and to do the things that they are best at. In short, Plato's government reinforces the need for order while giving the illusion of freedom. On the other hand, Machiavelli proposes that government's primary concern is to remain intact, thereby preserving stability for the people who live under it. The feature that both philosophers share is that they attempt to compromise between stability and freedom, and in the process admit that neither can be totally had.

    Read More

  • The Consolation of Philosophy

    999 Words  | 2 Pages

    In book III of The Consolation of Philosophy, Boethius establishes the fact that God is the world's helmsman, the divine reason, the supreme good, the origin of all things. He demonstrates that God is omnipotent and omniscient. Nothing more superior can even be conceived of. Through the concept of unity, through which things basically become good, Boethius shows that God and happiness are one, the divine goodness. He concludes, "God is the essence of happiness." (70)

    Read More

  • Locke And Machiavelli Research Paper

    1179 Words  | 3 Pages

    Locke and Marx put their trust in human reason while Machiavelli does not. These authors’ assumptions and different conceptions of human nature determine and lead to each of their conclusions regarding human nature. This paper will argue that Locke views human nature in a positive manner where humans are rational and reasonable. This paper will also argue that Marx denies the existence of human nature and instead concludes that social relations and society ultimately defines humans. Finally, this paper will argue that Machiavelli, unlike the other authors, has a negative understanding of humans as he thinks that man is selfish and that an individual should not be given too much power as they only act upon their own self-interest.

    Read More

  • Essay Comparing Benjamin Franklin and Jonathan Edwards

    917 Words  | 2 Pages

    Different literature writers have many different views about mankind. Many American writers discuss these views. More out spoken American writers spend a great amount of time talking about this topic. In this paper we will look at Benjamin Franklin’s and Jonathan Edwards’ views of mankind by looking at personal background, religious views, and evidence in their writings.

    Read More

  • Aristotle Wins Ethically: A comparison between John Stuart Mill and Aristotle on happiness

    1260 Words  | 3 Pages

    Simply defined, happiness is the state of being happy. But, what exactly does it mean to “be happy?” Repeatedly, many philosophers and ideologists have proposed ideas about what happiness means and how one attains happiness. In this paper, I will argue that Aristotle’s conception of happiness is driven more in the eye of ethics than John Stuart Mill. First, looking at Mill’s unprincipled version of happiness, I will criticize the imperfections of his definition in relation to ethics. Next, I plan to identify Aristotle’s core values for happiness. According to Aristotle, happiness comes from virtue, whereas Mill believes happiness comes from pleasure and the absence of pain. Ethics are the moral principles that govern a person’s behavior which are driven by virtues - good traits of character. Thus, Aristotle focuses on three things, which I will outline in order to answer the question, “what does it mean to live a good life?” The first of which is the number one good in life is happiness. Secondly, there is a difference between moral virtues and intellectual virtues and lastly, leading a good life is a state of character. Personally and widely accepted, happiness is believed to be a true defining factor on leading a well intentioned, rational, and satisfactory life. However, it is important to note the ways in which one achieves their happiness, through the people and experiences to reach that state of being. In consequence, Aristotle’s focus on happiness presents a more arguable notion of “good character” and “rational.”

    Read More

  • Compare And Contrast John Locke And Machiavelli

    1447 Words  | 3 Pages

    Machiavelli believed that, ethics and morality were considered in other categories than those generally known. He does not deny the existence of, but did not see how they can be useful in its traditional sense as in politics and in the government of the people. According to Machiavelli, a man is by nature a political angry and fearful. Machiavelli had no high opinion of the people. It is assumed that a person is forced to be good and can get into the number of positive features, such as prudence and courage. The prince can only proceed gently and with love, because that would undermine the naivety of his rule, and hence and the well-being of the state. He thought that, the Lord must act morally as far as possible, immorally to the extent to

    Read More

  • Comparing Machiavelli and Hobbes

    1482 Words  | 3 Pages

    To be successful, one must have the appearance of virtuousness, but not necessarily be virtuous. At least, this appears to be true according to Niccolo Machiavelli's works. Machiavelli's idea of the virtuous republican citizen may be compared to Hobbes' idea of a person who properly understands the nature and basis of sovereign political power. Hobbes' ideas seem to suggest that most anyone can claim rightful authority as there is a belief in God, and one can under Hobbes, claim legitimate authority rather easily. There are few proofs. Machiavelli, on the other hand, takes a strong position and suggests specific criteria in terms of power. With Machiavelli, there is a sense of righteousness and fairness and while he does not sanction authoritarian rule to save man from himself, it is also true that Machiavelli puts a lot of faith in leaders also. In some respects, one can see that the two theorists agree yet Machiavelli’s proposed Political society is more feasible thus superior to that of Hobbes.

    Read More

  • Machiavelli's list of virtues

    1287 Words  | 3 Pages

    Through his many years of experience with Italian politics Machiavelli wrote “The Prince”; a how-to guide for new rulers. We are given descriptions of what a leader should do to effectively lead his country. A leader should be the only authority determining every aspect of the state and put in effect a policy to serve his best interests. These interests are gaining, maintaining, and expanding his political power. Machiavelli’s idea is that a ruler should use a variety of strategies (virtues) to secure his power. Machiavelli lists five virtues that a ruler should appear to have; being compassionate, trustworthy, generous, honest and religious. A ruler should possess all the qualities considered good by other people.

    Read More

  • Moral And Ethical Choices In Niccolo Machiavelli's The Prince

    730 Words  | 2 Pages

    In Niccolo Machiavelli 's book The Prince, is an series of advice given by Machiavelli himself to a prince. During the chapters of 14 to 19, Machiavelli unravels the ideas and qualities it takes to be a prince. In the following sections, he also explains the virtues and vices that might be required for a prince. This paper will analyze certain sections from the reading and how the traditional interpretation of Machiavelli which advises immoral choices and from a different standpoint showing other possible ways that Machiavelli 's advice would be a moral or ethical choice. The idea of understanding these advices is to help the readers understand what the prince needs to know and what choices he needs to make, whether moral or immoral.

    Read More

  • Is Virtue Sufficient for Happiness?

    705 Words  | 2 Pages

    There is much debate over the right path to happiness in life dating back to early civilization in the Roman Empire. Majority of people believe that happiness can only be achieved by material things such as; wealth, political power, fancy cars and so forth, whereas others believe that striving for pleasure and success ultimately yields happiness. Liberal education tends to take a conceptual approach to teaching the importance of virtues, whereas vocational studies tend to have a more practical approach. In “On Liberal and Vocational Studies,” Roman philosopher Seneca gives his own view of happiness and the importance of liberal studies in virtuous character of men. As a champion for living a virtuous life as opposed to materialism, Seneca’s remarks explain his arguments for virtue. Essentially, Seneca argues that men should not place emphasis on the things of this world arguing that happiness is not achieved by the possessions in one’s life, but by the way one lives their life.

    Read More

  • Compare And Contrast Plato And Machiavelli

    947 Words  | 2 Pages

    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

    Read More

More about The Consolation Of Philosophy: The Relationship Between Morality And Politics

Open Document