Plato Vs Machiavelli Research Paper

786 Words 4 Pages
A successful and respected ruler must have many qualities to give themselves the control they need to govern a country. Both Plato and Machiavelli suggest a different way to rule, which they both believe work to benefit themselves and their country. Machiavelli believes in governing his way because he says a ruler should appear “merciful, truthful, humane, sincere, and religious” and feared by citizens. Plato believes a ruler should be knowledgeable in philosophy, and not necessarily want to rule because those who aren’t after the money or title will be the best rulers. Although some may believe that Plato’s gentler, and more knowledge-based approach may be better, Machiavelli suggests a better way to rule for today's society than Plato does because he believe that a ruler should be feared in order to maintain power and control over a society. It is in our nature to do what someone is telling you if you are afraid of what they’ll do if you don’t.
Machiavelli believes a prince should have some of these qualities but not all because they can be harmful to yourself. Although he says one should not have all
…show more content…
One way he says a ruler should “help” citizens are by not being generous, but if you are being generous you must let everyone know, to help defer the consequences of being generous. He says if you are generous you will have to get the money back somehow, often by taxing more than usual “to keep a name for generosity, he will have to load his people with exorbitant taxes and squeeze money out of them in every way he can”. If a ruler does this, it’s in some ways the same as a loan, the ruler is giving something away, and will get redeemed for it later, in one way or another, and he will probably get back more than he gave, causing the citizen to struggle more than before. If a ruler isn’t generous this won’t happen and people won’t be angry for taking their money, and will still have their

Related Documents