Comparing Machiavelli's The Prince And The Discourses
Political theory fundamentally relies on human nature. States can only function if they understand how citizens will respond. Machiavelli founds his novel ideas on state priorities on a radical concept of human nature. For him, the average person does not value political communities, politics, or political ideals. The Prince and The Discourses ground their policy recommendations in an aggressively apolitical human nature.
Human nature is defined by interpersonal relationships rather than communities. Machiavelli bases his political theories on these relationships. The Prince’s central message is the importance of a ruler’s relationship with his subjects. When discussing cruelty and clemency, Machiavelli explicitly characterizes the relationship between ruler and subject as “friendship” or “hatred” (Prince, Chapter 17). When he does advocate for …show more content…
Machiavelli considers the state a top-down structure, not a bottom-up. Human nature does not compel people to live in communities, but it does compel some individuals to desire power. The discussion on armed prophets places the burden of state creation solely on notable individuals, who “are forced to introduce [systems] to establish their government and its security” (Prince, Chapter 6). Even when people have customs and culture that conflict with new rulers, Machiavelli only values those differences as tools for the self-interest of nobles, not as genuine political conflicts between ideologies (Prince, Chapter 5). In republics, the ruling class must safeguard liberty. Compared to earlier authors like Aquinas, whose highest value (religious virtue) should be facilitated by the state, Machiavelli seems paranoid. Since human nature does not engender liberty, leaders must construct states to create and preserve it. People do not require or even particularly desire the Machiavellian state, the Machiavellian state fully relies on the
Human nature is defined by interpersonal relationships rather than communities. Machiavelli bases his political theories on these relationships. The Prince’s central message is the importance of a ruler’s relationship with his subjects. When discussing cruelty and clemency, Machiavelli explicitly characterizes the relationship between ruler and subject as “friendship” or “hatred” (Prince, Chapter 17). When he does advocate for …show more content…
Machiavelli considers the state a top-down structure, not a bottom-up. Human nature does not compel people to live in communities, but it does compel some individuals to desire power. The discussion on armed prophets places the burden of state creation solely on notable individuals, who “are forced to introduce [systems] to establish their government and its security” (Prince, Chapter 6). Even when people have customs and culture that conflict with new rulers, Machiavelli only values those differences as tools for the self-interest of nobles, not as genuine political conflicts between ideologies (Prince, Chapter 5). In republics, the ruling class must safeguard liberty. Compared to earlier authors like Aquinas, whose highest value (religious virtue) should be facilitated by the state, Machiavelli seems paranoid. Since human nature does not engender liberty, leaders must construct states to create and preserve it. People do not require or even particularly desire the Machiavellian state, the Machiavellian state fully relies on the