Hypothesis My analysis of the following readings: The Trial and Death of Socrates, the Republic and The Prince will examine the relationship between morality and politics. I propose that the most moral people should be involved in politics. The overall goal of my paper is to examine the differences between Socrates, Plato and Machiavelli in their beliefs of where, or if at all, morality should be involved in politics. The results will show that both the leader and the people being led would be more just and well rounded if morality plays a key role in government.
Introduction
A good sense of morality is a trait that the majority of people would desire in a political candidate. Without it, how is one to judge what is right and what is wrong? …show more content…
His work in The Prince is regarded as the height of immorality which completely removes morals from politics. It is clear that Machiavelli does not advocate for immoral acts for their own sake and he is not suggesting them as inherently good. Yet, his work reveals that he is not interested in what people in general or philosophers think things ought to be, he is interested in what is reality. Machiavelli believes morality is not the fundamental thing in life. In fact, he suggests that a prince should try to avoid vices if he can but if he cannot that is okay as well if they will benefit the state. He states, “Above all, do not be upset if you are supposed to have those vices a ruler needs if he is going to stay securely in power, for, if you think about it, you will realize there some way of behaving that are supposed to be virtuous but would lead to your downfall, and others that are supposed to be wicked, but will lead to your welfare and peace of mind,” (Ch. 15). He clearly does not put much emphasis on morality by this statement. To him, morality is not a necessary quality for a leader to …show more content…
It seems to me the government and style of leadership that Machiavelli describe was a dishonest one. Power also played a key role in The Prince. Over the course of my education it has been repeatedly told to me that a ruler must not have too much power and what power they do have must be checked by other forms of government. While Machiavelli warns against too much power, without moral how is one to judge how much is too much? If a ruler possesses too much power that will result in poor treatment of it’s people and lack of freedom for citizens. A ruler must possess a good sense of morality to appropriately and justly guide its’ people. The argument that Machiavelli uses for lack of morality is, in my opinion, taking the easy way out. Of course leadership would be easier if you didn’t have to worry about what is right wrong. Life would be easier that way too. But, if a leader has not moral compass to guide them through governance, the end result would most likely end in some kind of a revolution of the
Introduction
A good sense of morality is a trait that the majority of people would desire in a political candidate. Without it, how is one to judge what is right and what is wrong? …show more content…
His work in The Prince is regarded as the height of immorality which completely removes morals from politics. It is clear that Machiavelli does not advocate for immoral acts for their own sake and he is not suggesting them as inherently good. Yet, his work reveals that he is not interested in what people in general or philosophers think things ought to be, he is interested in what is reality. Machiavelli believes morality is not the fundamental thing in life. In fact, he suggests that a prince should try to avoid vices if he can but if he cannot that is okay as well if they will benefit the state. He states, “Above all, do not be upset if you are supposed to have those vices a ruler needs if he is going to stay securely in power, for, if you think about it, you will realize there some way of behaving that are supposed to be virtuous but would lead to your downfall, and others that are supposed to be wicked, but will lead to your welfare and peace of mind,” (Ch. 15). He clearly does not put much emphasis on morality by this statement. To him, morality is not a necessary quality for a leader to …show more content…
It seems to me the government and style of leadership that Machiavelli describe was a dishonest one. Power also played a key role in The Prince. Over the course of my education it has been repeatedly told to me that a ruler must not have too much power and what power they do have must be checked by other forms of government. While Machiavelli warns against too much power, without moral how is one to judge how much is too much? If a ruler possesses too much power that will result in poor treatment of it’s people and lack of freedom for citizens. A ruler must possess a good sense of morality to appropriately and justly guide its’ people. The argument that Machiavelli uses for lack of morality is, in my opinion, taking the easy way out. Of course leadership would be easier if you didn’t have to worry about what is right wrong. Life would be easier that way too. But, if a leader has not moral compass to guide them through governance, the end result would most likely end in some kind of a revolution of the