Machiavelli's Republic

Plato and Machiavelli are both theorists that focus on the concept of well-being in regards to the state. However, although their main concentration is the same – the well-being of the state – they vastly differ when it comes to what their stand on morality is, focusing on separate virtues within their books, Republic and The Prince respectively. A virtue is defined as a conformity to a standard of right: morality” or a “particular moral excellence” (Virtue). Plato centres around virtues such as wisdom, courage, temperance and justice whereas, Machiavelli focuses on boldness, adaptation, prudence and foresight. In this paper I will focus on the differences and similarities between Plato and Machiavelli’s accounts of virtue, what virtues each finds valuable for political life and how they contribute to the health of the state. I will also touch on how the theorists’ accounts of virtue deviate from one another and what that tells us about the approaches each takes in regards to the political life.

On the heels of the Peloponnesian war, Socrates was blamed for corrupting the youth and disrespecting the Athenian gods and Athenian values. His defense or “Apology” and reaction after he was sentenced to death in “Crito” demonstrate his most basic philosophy and ideals of what a government should truly be like. Yet in a vastly different situation, Machiavelli, who lived during the renaissance of Italy experienced constant shifts of power which he wrote his book, “The Prince”. Machiavelli writes about how a leader or prince should conduct himself in order to keep and efficiently run a republic or principality. Although Socrates’ texts on the surface deal with his accusations, the texts give great insight as to how he thinks a government

It is clear that the dynamics that characterized Rome’s society during the Republic were never easy. There was a constant push and pull of intentions and interests between Patricians and Plebeians. The Patricians always wanting to maintain economic and political supremacy while the Plebeians were in constant

Machiavelli’s views on republics serve as the first difference between his political views and the American government. Machiavelli generally puts those in a republic in a negative light by claiming that the subjects of a republic are not used to standing up for themselves and cannot agree to give themselves a leader. Therefore, it is not a sturdy government to capture. Instead of finding the idea of no singular person being a leader a good way to ensure statewide cooperation and content, Machiavelli claims that, “In republics there is more vitality, greater hatred, and more desire for vengeance,” (Machiavelli, Chapter V). Which is a far cry to the American government’s oath to all of its freedoms and liberties. Machiavelli moves on to say that the safest way to capture a republic state is to destroy it altogether. This shows his views on republics are very much negative and that he believes they are almost a nuisance to a prince trying to maintain a state. Of course this is a drastic difference to the American government, where its subjects thrive in a republic. In other words, while Machiavelli believes no state could be maintained as a republic, the American government proves that it could still be

One of the longest standing arguments in history is focused along the lines of the role of power in government. Who should be granted this power, and how should one elect a leader to be given such an immense responsibility. Often times, another conflict emerges attempting to distinguish the exact role a government must serve, however this argument is placed between the crossfire of human’s need for individual freedoms and liberties yet their desire for structure and some form of order. Two powerful voices in this debate are those of Niccolo Machiavelli and Plato, separated by hundreds of years in history the two men had differing views on the role of the government’s influence on its people. Machiavelli expresses his idea of the correct form of government in both “The Prince” and “The Discourses” in which he preaches that a government must stand strong in order for the people below it to flourish. Meanwhile Plato’s notorious “The Republic” takes a different stance and pushes the idea that the government can give an illusion of freedom by maintaining a specific structure. Obviously one cannot manage a republic without some form of class structure and both men are given the opportunity to portray their thoughts on the role of what one might call the lower class. Although Machiavelli and Plato disagree on complex roles surrounding the exact duties of the lower classes, one thing is certain, through textual evidence they both seem to believe that it is crucial that the most

There is a fundamental difference between a democracy and a republic as it concerned the political entitlement of the citizenry. The citizens of a republic do not participate directly with governmental affairs. The citizens of a republic can however have a say in who does participate. The Roman republic has two prefect systems to prevent dictatorship which didn’t work.

According to Machiavelli, there are a few situations in which a leader can take power, each with varying levels of upkeep. The first is by sheer luck or buying land, which he explains is easy to acquire but hard to maintain. In the text, Machiavelli writes, “Although, they have no difficulty on the way as they go flying along, all their difficulties arise when they have landed” (Machiavelli 28). Because the new leader has no experience or loyal army it will be extremely challenging to stay in power. On the other hand, if a state is won by the new leaders abilities and talent he will have a much easier time (Machiavelli 24). Machiavelli also mentions many times the importance of having a loyal military. Being the commander of the Army of Italy,

Part One: As Catherine Zuckert mentions in “Machiavelli and the End of Nobility in Politics”, Machiavelli gained various critiques through his book, The Prince, in which he goes against the popular belief of having a “good” government (Zuckert, 85). In Zuckert’s article, she mentions that although viewed negatively, Machiavelli used his writing to reignite the government’s responsibility to provide the people with what they wanted and needed (Zuckert, 85). Through such, he asks for the people to be suspicious of their government and doubt the leader’s actions (Zuckert, 85). Therefore, Machiavelli’s The Prince, is not a book that praises bad government or one that rules against the people’s will. Instead, it but focuses on the government providing

A president of a country not only attempts to help guide people but intends to protect its society and the state. Every leader is either corrupt has genuine and sincere intentions to assist their community. But makes the ideal leader? Are there specific traits needed to reinforce rules and regulations for the better good? According to Niccolo Machiavelli, there are specific characteristics that make a successful leader. However, the Machiavellian system of government is not an effective method to lead a community, but rather is an archaic ideology that can lead to a societal uproar. In this journal,

     Machiavelli is a supporter of popular rule, though in an indirect way. Rulers must please their constituents but not give them power. For if the people feel they have power they will rebel against their leader and cause chaos in the state. On page 96 Machiavelli states, “it is the populace who are responsible for innumerable conflicts and clashes in a republic.â€? Because it is difficult to satisfy the majority without upsetting the minority, people become enraged and protest, causing what the government would consider to be conflicts. That is why it is so important to create a strong government that revolves around a magistrate or council, for people fear being publicly accused of faults, let alone as a threat to public liberty. Machiavelli states that there is no authority more “useful and necessaryâ€? for leaders of a government to employ upon their citizens. “[Citizens] for fear of being accused, dare not attempt to do anything that might

Thomas Hobbes and Niccolo Machiavelli are considered to be the earliest political thinkers of a modern state in which civilization lives coercively, being governed by an organized system of government. However, the basic differences stand where the means to acquire a state with a sovereign or princely figure are based on two differing concepts. Moreover, the two modern political thinkers’ philosophies vary significantly, resulting in diverse opinions on what a modern state ought to encompass in terms of its legitimization and motives. Even though Hobbes and Machiavelli embody different perspectives on the acquisition of power; their common end is the foundation of a modern state even though the means to satisfy this end are divergent. While

In Ancient Greece, many philosophers and historians examined and illustrated details we now know as a republic. One instance, in "The Republic," noted philosopher, Plato, sets prominent stress on the value of civil power (striving for the ideal) collectively with particular virtue ('just man') on the part of the ideal rulers. Admittedly, in Book V, Plato affirms that until rulers have the view of philosophers (Socrates) or scholars become the leaders, there can be no public sympathy or pleasure.

Niccolo Machiavelli’s abstract work of The Prince discusses politics and government and focuses in not only acquiring power, but also how to maintain it. Throughout his work, one of the most prevalent yet disputed themes is between the acquirement of states between principalities and republics. The Prince shows a predominant and constant debate on which group will excel in acquiring power. However, despite Machiavelli’s harsh criticisms on principalities, his work does not solely praise or focus on the excellence of republics. In fact, as Machiavelli continues to speak and provide examples about the successes and failures of both republics and principalities, it becomes clearer that the lone purpose of The Prince is to merely provide tactics in political governance, instruction on how to maintain power once it is acquired, and most importantly, advice on how to become a great leader.

A peaceful and patriotic citizenry is achieved where rights and freedoms of all citizens are upheld, and where the citizens are responsible enough to obey the existing legitimate laws and powers of the land. Obedience to legitimate laws and powers are best achieved not through force, but largely through patriotism on the part of the citizens. Jean-Jacques is an advocate for a just, peaceful society. On the other hand, Machiavellian society appreciates and justifies use of force for personal gains.

Relying on the needs of the society of that time, Machiavelli comes to the conclusion that the most important task is the formation of a single Italian state (Machiavelli 15). Developing his thoughts, the author comes to the following inference: only a prince can become a leader capable of leading people and building a unified state. It is not a concrete historical personality but someone abstract, symbolic, possessing such qualities that in the aggregate are inaccessible to any living ruler. That is why Machiavelli devotes most of his research to the issue of what qualities should the prince possess to fulfill the historical task of developing a new state. The written work is constructed strictly logically and objectively. Even though the image of an ideal prince is abstract, Machiavelli argues that he should be ruthless, deceiving, and selfish.