Similar to how we see many differences in views among politicians today, when we look back throughout history it is clear that there is a large contrast in styles of ruling among both ancient and modern political thinkers. Specifically, when looking at ancient political thinker, Diodotus, and modern political thinker, Machiavelli, there is a vivid distinction between their understandings of justice and how a healthy democracy should operate. Diodotus has a more rational understanding of justice. Rather than having the “eye for an eye” mentality, his main focus is to look at what will best benefit his states long term. Machiavelli on the other hand has a more violent understanding of justice and believes that it is more important to rule with
…show more content…
Through this piece, it is evident that Machiavelli is different from Diodotus in several ways. A big difference between the two is the idea of ruling with fear, and just how efficient it can be. Machiavelli strongly believes that in ruling, it is impossible for a Prince to possess all of the “good” qualities one would hope to have, such as friendly, generous, merciful, etc. In the sense of a ruler being feared or loved by his citizens, he believes that it is more important for a ruler to be feared, as he states, “Is it better to be loved than feared or better to be feared than loved? Well, one would like to be both; but it’s difficult for one person to be both feared and loved, and when a choice has to be made it is safer to be feared,” (Machiavelli 36). He believes that men in general are “ungrateful, fickle, deceptive, cowardly and greedy,” (Machiavelli 36), and that they will only stand by you when you are benefiting them, but they will turn against you if that changes. Machiavelli believes that a prince will find himself ruined if he relies on man’s promise, without taking any precautions beyond that. He believes that friendships that are bought instead of earned are not reliable in time of need, as he states, “ Men are less hesitant about letting down someone they love than in letting down someone they fear, because love affects men’s behaviour only through the thought of …show more content…
As far as persuasiveness goes, they both have very convincing arguments. On one hand, Diodotus’ views and beliefs are extremely rational and wise, especially when thinking about them in terms of today’s democratic republic. In the United States, there is a large debate on the death penalty in many states and whether or not it is an appropriate punishment. It is reasonable to assume that most people in today’s society would read Diodotus’ speech and strongly agree with his thoughts on the punishment of the Mitylenians, as he comes across as very calm and composed. Many people today would find his focus on the long-term extremely appealing. Diodotus’ idea of what justice means and what it takes to have a healthy democracy would likely be favored by today’s liberal citizens. While Dioditus’ ideas apply to a more contemporary society, Machiavelli’s ideas prove to be greater in both quantity and quality, as he provides a lot of evidence to support his claims. While many of the ideas of how a prince should rule may come across as crude at first, Machiavelli attaches certain limitations to each standard of ruling that make them appear more reasonable. For example, when discussing the idea of how it is more important to be feared than loved, he states, “Still, a prince should to inspire fear in such a way that if he isn’t loved he at least
Through this piece, it is evident that Machiavelli is different from Diodotus in several ways. A big difference between the two is the idea of ruling with fear, and just how efficient it can be. Machiavelli strongly believes that in ruling, it is impossible for a Prince to possess all of the “good” qualities one would hope to have, such as friendly, generous, merciful, etc. In the sense of a ruler being feared or loved by his citizens, he believes that it is more important for a ruler to be feared, as he states, “Is it better to be loved than feared or better to be feared than loved? Well, one would like to be both; but it’s difficult for one person to be both feared and loved, and when a choice has to be made it is safer to be feared,” (Machiavelli 36). He believes that men in general are “ungrateful, fickle, deceptive, cowardly and greedy,” (Machiavelli 36), and that they will only stand by you when you are benefiting them, but they will turn against you if that changes. Machiavelli believes that a prince will find himself ruined if he relies on man’s promise, without taking any precautions beyond that. He believes that friendships that are bought instead of earned are not reliable in time of need, as he states, “ Men are less hesitant about letting down someone they love than in letting down someone they fear, because love affects men’s behaviour only through the thought of …show more content…
As far as persuasiveness goes, they both have very convincing arguments. On one hand, Diodotus’ views and beliefs are extremely rational and wise, especially when thinking about them in terms of today’s democratic republic. In the United States, there is a large debate on the death penalty in many states and whether or not it is an appropriate punishment. It is reasonable to assume that most people in today’s society would read Diodotus’ speech and strongly agree with his thoughts on the punishment of the Mitylenians, as he comes across as very calm and composed. Many people today would find his focus on the long-term extremely appealing. Diodotus’ idea of what justice means and what it takes to have a healthy democracy would likely be favored by today’s liberal citizens. While Dioditus’ ideas apply to a more contemporary society, Machiavelli’s ideas prove to be greater in both quantity and quality, as he provides a lot of evidence to support his claims. While many of the ideas of how a prince should rule may come across as crude at first, Machiavelli attaches certain limitations to each standard of ruling that make them appear more reasonable. For example, when discussing the idea of how it is more important to be feared than loved, he states, “Still, a prince should to inspire fear in such a way that if he isn’t loved he at least