Comparing Machiavelli And Rousseau's The Origin Of Civil Society

The Organization of Society Machiavelli’s The Prince, a story is told, explaining multiple routes of portraying his definition of a “good” prince. He then divulges his beliefs of how one should never forget to prepare for or contemplate war, study history, remain armed at all times and be a “miser”. Rousseau’s The Origin of Civil Society, is based upon an entirely different morale which derives from reasoning and ethics. Machiavelli and Rousseau have entirely polar opposite views of power and leadership and how they should be used in society. One of the first key components Machiavelli divulges in “Qualities of the Prince” is his belief of attaining a perfect society by always being prepared for war, which according to him goes hand in hand with being armed. Machiavelli strongly supports hunting and obtaining knowledge on things such as the lay of the land. “He must always be out hunting, and must accustom his body to hardship in this matter; and he must also learn the nature of the terrain (Machiavelli 8)”. Machiavelli believes that in order to know the land you must be a …show more content…
Rousseau observes human nature as innately good when it’s extracted from all social attachments and the immensely corrupting overall influence of society itself. Society, for Rousseau in his eyes is a grand impulse where the decencies of human beings are displayed. Rousseau 's political theories are derived from the seemingly simple idea of arranging humans into a social setting that’s bare of corrupting elements of society. Rousseau 's leap toward a social and political order of amour propre over amour de soi is evidence of this. Rousseau derives a substantial amount of his beliefs from morals such as equality. “Equality disappeared, property was introduced (Rousseau 9)”. Rousseau genuinely possessed empathy for the health, happiness, and labor of “good men” while Machiavelli did