Machiavelli and Socrates Would Not Support the Same Prince
While both Socrates and Niccolo Machiavelli grew up in times of political turmoil and economic instability, Socrates would not be supportive of Machiavelli’s concept of a good prince. Their concepts of an effective ruler are completely different – the extent of their similarities are their experiences with political fragmentation and war. Both aim to establish a long-lasting government, but Machiavelli believes a ruthless ruler without regard to morality is needed, while Socrates would suggest a virtuous ruler is vital to establishing a stable government.
In The Prince And the Discourses, Machiavelli articulates what makes a good ruler and provides guidelines for how they should rule. …show more content…
If you do this, I shall have justice at your hands – I and my children,” (Apology, 41e). On the other hand, Machiavelli would not want to live an examined life because his stealthy ways could be exposed and cause uproar from constituents. Additionally, Machiavelli would have thought the rulers during Socrates’ time were just in sentencing Socrates to death because killing exhibits the power of a state. Machiavelli believes that politicians must get their hands dirty and that doing good is not necessarily being good. For example, a political leader can be doing something good by feeding the poor, but if that does not benefit that state, then he is not being a good political leader. Thus, Machiavelli and Socrates’ ideas conflict because Socrates would want a leader to do good for the sake of doing good, but Machiavelli would want a leader to only do good things if it will result in political …show more content…
In turn, he thinks that some vices, although viewed negatively, are for the greater good of the government. For example, Machiavelli writes that reputation should be a high priority for a good prince. He advises, “Whenever it happens that some one does something extraordinary, either good or evil, in civil life, he must find such means of rewarding or punishing him which will be much talked about,” (The Prince And the Discourses, 82). Even if something bad happens, Machiavelli believes a prince should find a way to manipulate the situation by gossiping and garnering attention to improve his reputation. He makes it clear that reputation is more important than the quality of leadership. Overall, Machiavelli advocates that the betterment of the state’s popularity should be the prince’s top priority over doing the right thing. However, he emphasizes that it is crucial
While both Socrates and Niccolo Machiavelli grew up in times of political turmoil and economic instability, Socrates would not be supportive of Machiavelli’s concept of a good prince. Their concepts of an effective ruler are completely different – the extent of their similarities are their experiences with political fragmentation and war. Both aim to establish a long-lasting government, but Machiavelli believes a ruthless ruler without regard to morality is needed, while Socrates would suggest a virtuous ruler is vital to establishing a stable government.
In The Prince And the Discourses, Machiavelli articulates what makes a good ruler and provides guidelines for how they should rule. …show more content…
If you do this, I shall have justice at your hands – I and my children,” (Apology, 41e). On the other hand, Machiavelli would not want to live an examined life because his stealthy ways could be exposed and cause uproar from constituents. Additionally, Machiavelli would have thought the rulers during Socrates’ time were just in sentencing Socrates to death because killing exhibits the power of a state. Machiavelli believes that politicians must get their hands dirty and that doing good is not necessarily being good. For example, a political leader can be doing something good by feeding the poor, but if that does not benefit that state, then he is not being a good political leader. Thus, Machiavelli and Socrates’ ideas conflict because Socrates would want a leader to do good for the sake of doing good, but Machiavelli would want a leader to only do good things if it will result in political …show more content…
In turn, he thinks that some vices, although viewed negatively, are for the greater good of the government. For example, Machiavelli writes that reputation should be a high priority for a good prince. He advises, “Whenever it happens that some one does something extraordinary, either good or evil, in civil life, he must find such means of rewarding or punishing him which will be much talked about,” (The Prince And the Discourses, 82). Even if something bad happens, Machiavelli believes a prince should find a way to manipulate the situation by gossiping and garnering attention to improve his reputation. He makes it clear that reputation is more important than the quality of leadership. Overall, Machiavelli advocates that the betterment of the state’s popularity should be the prince’s top priority over doing the right thing. However, he emphasizes that it is crucial