The Republic Vs. Machiavelli's The Prince
Since the state is an organised community of individuals who cooperate and coordinate to live under a single political structure, good governance is necessary. Nicholas Machiavelli contrasts Plato's utopia attending a central problem of politics by practising power over individuals to achieve wellbeing to the state. This essay explores how philosophers approach the concept of power through the virtues shown in their respective works The Republic and The Prince.
Both philosophers, Plato in the polis and Machiavelli in the principality, argue that virtues are necessary and serve the ultimate purpose of guidance for the state to flourish. However, the consequences of both currents are entirely different. Plato suggests to act with justice because it is just while acting with virtue just to maintain appearances must seem to be Machiavelli's motto. Plato bases his theory in the idealism that the harmony in the soul will lead to justice among individuals and polis, whereas Machiavelli argues that …show more content…
The philosopher-king knows and acts according to what is best for the entire poli; he acts according to the good because he knows the Idea of the Good. The closer the harmony of soul and social classes to the Idea of Justice and therefore to the Idea of Good, the more virtuous will be the polis. Since the philosopher-king is more familiar with reason, there is a rational principle at the root of the moral distinctions that will eventually have repercussions in the polis.
Conversely Machiavelli thought that it was not necessary to have ethics and morals to govern, Plato linked the philosophers-rulers directly with ethics, since for him, happiness consisted in being just.
In this way, we find that two philosophers of time and different thoughts try to reach the same end based on the state and that they think of achieving the happiness of the individual if the state itself allows it, but having a different view of
Both philosophers, Plato in the polis and Machiavelli in the principality, argue that virtues are necessary and serve the ultimate purpose of guidance for the state to flourish. However, the consequences of both currents are entirely different. Plato suggests to act with justice because it is just while acting with virtue just to maintain appearances must seem to be Machiavelli's motto. Plato bases his theory in the idealism that the harmony in the soul will lead to justice among individuals and polis, whereas Machiavelli argues that …show more content…
The philosopher-king knows and acts according to what is best for the entire poli; he acts according to the good because he knows the Idea of the Good. The closer the harmony of soul and social classes to the Idea of Justice and therefore to the Idea of Good, the more virtuous will be the polis. Since the philosopher-king is more familiar with reason, there is a rational principle at the root of the moral distinctions that will eventually have repercussions in the polis.
Conversely Machiavelli thought that it was not necessary to have ethics and morals to govern, Plato linked the philosophers-rulers directly with ethics, since for him, happiness consisted in being just.
In this way, we find that two philosophers of time and different thoughts try to reach the same end based on the state and that they think of achieving the happiness of the individual if the state itself allows it, but having a different view of