One of Aristotle’s most famous claims, in his discussion on politics, is that “a human being is by nature an animal meant for a city” (Aristotle 4). By this, he is asserting that human beings are naturally destined to live their best life in an independent political association of some sort, among and in cooperation with other humans. The main reasoning for this assertion is the natural inherent necessity for other humans that human beings require. The primary purpose of humans, in Aristotle’s view, is to become self-sufficient. As Aristotle defines it, self-sufficiency is the natural best end for human beings. In Aristotle’s philosophy, the city is what accomplishes a complete self-sufficiency, and as such this is what he bases his claim that
…show more content…
Machiavelli is primarily concerned with the preservation of the city by whatever means necessary. He is not particularly concerned with morality in actions of the city, and this is preached throughout The Prince when he discusses the various means of acquiring and maintaining rule despite the ethical ramifications of doing so – even going so far as to suggest one may resort to acquiring and maintaining rule through committing crimes. It is important to recognize that Machiavelli does not devalue the individuals within the city though, he understands that the individuals are important in the sense that power over the many people through consent is …show more content…
In this, Machiavelli is suggesting quite the opposite from Aristotle’s claim – he is suggesting that the “people,” being those that are ruled, do not naturally desire a public/political life and are instead naturally primarily self-interested in their own private concerns. Through advising princes to encourage and play to this natural state of human beings, we are able to infer that Machiavelli is suggesting that the plurality of humans isn’t necessarily meant to participate in public life, or politics, as Aristotle suggests is the “best” life for humans. Machiavelli is humanizing those that Aristotle would classify as either beastly or
Machiavelli is primarily concerned with the preservation of the city by whatever means necessary. He is not particularly concerned with morality in actions of the city, and this is preached throughout The Prince when he discusses the various means of acquiring and maintaining rule despite the ethical ramifications of doing so – even going so far as to suggest one may resort to acquiring and maintaining rule through committing crimes. It is important to recognize that Machiavelli does not devalue the individuals within the city though, he understands that the individuals are important in the sense that power over the many people through consent is …show more content…
In this, Machiavelli is suggesting quite the opposite from Aristotle’s claim – he is suggesting that the “people,” being those that are ruled, do not naturally desire a public/political life and are instead naturally primarily self-interested in their own private concerns. Through advising princes to encourage and play to this natural state of human beings, we are able to infer that Machiavelli is suggesting that the plurality of humans isn’t necessarily meant to participate in public life, or politics, as Aristotle suggests is the “best” life for humans. Machiavelli is humanizing those that Aristotle would classify as either beastly or