Compare And Contrast Aquinas And Machiavelli

1261 Words 6 Pages
Throughout history, numerous rulers have demonstrated characteristics that are necessary to properly be a leader. These characteristics include, but are not limited to, loyalty, trustworthiness, compassion, commitment, confidence, etc.… Combined, these characteristics cultured some of the greatest leaders this world has ever seen, however, what exactly is a good leader? Is it someone who brings among a movement like Gandhi and Nelson Mandela? Or is it someone like Napoleon, who uses cunning strategies to keep his people safe? While they are all very influential in who and what we are today, Aquinas and Machiavelli would both have differing views of what exactly a good leader is. Aquinas would argue that a good leader is someone who makes whatever sacrifices are necessary to keep the people safe. Machiavelli, on the other hand, believes that a good leader is someone who is intelligent, but earns the respect of the people. Together, they both contribute to what the modern world sees as an ideal leader. Aquinas was very educated as he studied the writings of people like Augustine and Aristotle. While some of his …show more content…
Aquinas does not believe it is truly right or wrong for the people to kill the ruler if the entire public believes he is unjust to rule. This means the entire public must have the same opinion whether the king should be killed or not. What Machiavelli says does not pertain to the public, but more to the ruler on how to prevent things like that from happening. While he still believes in using the force to earn the peoples respect, Machiavelli recognizes that the leader may also need to undermine the people. He is a firm believer in not presenting anything new to the public, instead, try to reform what is already being used. If the king was to demand new decrees right away, the people would be in an uproar because they have not earned the rulers trust

Related Documents