Machiavelli's The Prince
Is a just person the best choice for a ruler; many philosophers have laid out different ways in which they believe a society should be ran whether it be a single ruler such as a prince or multiple rulers like philosophy kings. Machiavelli intended for a society/principality to be ruled a strong ruler whether he be just or unjust, moral or immoral; whereas Plato believed for a society to work a just ruler such as the philosopher kings along with its other social counterparts was the perfect society. This paper intends to show how a just ruler was not something Machiavelli saw as pertinent to a society's survival whereas Plato deemed it to be at necessary for order and efficiency and for a city to work. Machiavelli's book The Prince was a letter written, with the
…show more content…
In addition, one of the main points that Machiavelli pushes through out his book is the use of force and fear. It is noted that force is a great way for a Prince to become "strong, secure, and respected"; and he links this force with the devastation that he talks about in seizing and securing a state. Another strong point to give in this argument against Machiavelli wanting a just ruler is the fact that he writes about a Prince seizing a state with "evil means"; he writes that "cruelty can be used well" and gives examples of rulers who had done so previously, and also that if a ruler uses evil means in his acquisition of a state they must decide how much injury or evil they wish to inflict. Machiavelli feels as though in seizing a state cruel acts are a must at first to get the people under control, but eventually he feels the people will forget, and forgive and understand why the acts committed were done. The last point to note is that Machiavelli says that a Prince does not need to be moral or ethical but virtuous and wise; a virtuous and wise prince will be able to keep the population in control, keep the military controlled, and by being virtuous and wise he able to do good for
In addition, one of the main points that Machiavelli pushes through out his book is the use of force and fear. It is noted that force is a great way for a Prince to become "strong, secure, and respected"; and he links this force with the devastation that he talks about in seizing and securing a state. Another strong point to give in this argument against Machiavelli wanting a just ruler is the fact that he writes about a Prince seizing a state with "evil means"; he writes that "cruelty can be used well" and gives examples of rulers who had done so previously, and also that if a ruler uses evil means in his acquisition of a state they must decide how much injury or evil they wish to inflict. Machiavelli feels as though in seizing a state cruel acts are a must at first to get the people under control, but eventually he feels the people will forget, and forgive and understand why the acts committed were done. The last point to note is that Machiavelli says that a Prince does not need to be moral or ethical but virtuous and wise; a virtuous and wise prince will be able to keep the population in control, keep the military controlled, and by being virtuous and wise he able to do good for