Machiavelli, Plato, Aristotle Essay

Machiavelli in his book The Prince seems to sap the truly foundations of virtuousity and stops at slide fastener short of capsizing the entire construction of religion. His thoughts resonate with a loathing of neat impartiality and propagate corrupted politics. Actu tout ensembley, right a bureau the term Machiavellianism is customd to refer to the aim of deceitfulness to advance geniuss goals or desires. In The Prince, Machiavelli breaks from the stainless make of moral excellence as represented by his philosophic predecessors Plato and Aristotle. Whereas his predecessors held deservingness in an model environment ( exampleism), Machiavelli defined virtue in a real environment where atomic number 53 is judged by his actions and non by the way his actions ought to be (realism). fit to Plato and Aristotle swell biography only exists in heart and soul virtue where a person will be most happy. Plato places emphasis on the defunctness of individualized desires by di nt of erotic love so that one keister come through comfort (Barker, 1959). Aristotle on the other hand believes that an ideal or perfect state brings give external the virtue in all men. A person will make enjoyment when all their actions and goals are virtuous. This implies that according to Aristotle triumph is a group goal and non an individual goal (Barker, 1959). Plato equally in bringing out the essence of love which must be percentaged among mickle suggests that happiness is a group goal.However, virtue in the Machiavellian sense seems to need a moral tone. By virtue, he alludes to personal qualities needed for the pass onment of ones own ends (Machiavelli, 1998). His view seems to be directed at self interests and non a common goal. In move personal interests, one is not conscientious about the gist by which he does so and therefore is not define by a moral imperative.In The Prince Machiavelli describes two types of principalities. One is transmissible and the other is acquired. He observes that though no virtue is required to attain a hereditary principality, it takes virtue to acquire and maintain a vernal principality. The basis of his views does not unaccompanied contradict the classical view on morality, however, he goes on further to expound and make allowances for evil, and this is what brings about the contradiction. For example Machiavelli states, When a new territory does not share the same language and culture as the princes original territory, the prince must rich person the wisdom and ability to assimilate the new territory (Machiavelli, 1998). This view wholly concurs with Platos on the need for wisdom as a virtue. On ability however, Machiavelli alludes to the single-valued function of ram down or violent essence which defies views on classical morality. In the same chapter, he goes on to say that a prince ought to protect his weaker neighbors and prevent the powerful ones from gaining more than power. Th e virtue of fearlessness here echoes the ruler virtues as outlined by Plato, courage being one of them. However, Machiavelli encourages the prince not to vary in using promote to hold this (Machiavelli, 1998). This goes against the grain of formulaic virtue as it encourages people in power to use whatever manner, even ruthless, to preserve their power.Machiavelli suggests two ways by which a occult citizen can become a prince, either by part or by ability. Among those who became princes through ability, Machiavelli cites Moses, Cyrus, Romulus, and Francesco Sforza among others. He gives the example of Borgia who genetical power and later lost it to dissuade princes from depending on fortune notwithstanding rather to use their abilities to attain success. He makes it top off that virtue or ability is more tie in to statecraft and less related to morality. In undermining morality, he allows for the use of force to gain and preserve power. He says A prince who comes to p ower by evil think abouts is said to have neither fortune nor ability. much(prenominal) a prince may gain power, but not glory (Machiavelli, 1998). By evil means, he refers to the use ruthlessness in seemly and improper ways. He condones that if cruelty is utilized to achieve a necessary goal, hence it is proper. However, if it is used to achieve no purpose but to knock up fear into the citizens, it is improper. Consequently, the proper use of force according to Machiavelli is a virtue. This contradicts the virtue of substitute as outlined by Plato which puts restrictions on the use of extreme means such(prenominal) as the use of force to achieve goals. One can infer that Plato would instigate for diplomacy rather than force if a prince aimed at achieving allegiance from his subjects.According to Plato, good life is only attained through perfect love which comes about by a submersion of personal desire. According to Machiavelli, a prince does not have to be love by the peop le, though stable he must not be hated (Machiavelli, 1998). He goes further to explain that history has revealed that men who were not loved but feared were more effective leaders. A ruler who brings mayhem to his state because of his ill-judged kindness should not be considered a good leader. For Machiavelli, the virtue a prince should dog is fear from his subjects and not love (Machiavelli, 1998). Such a prince, he explains, will be able to sustain the morale of his subjects, which takes twain wisdom and courage. Therefore according to Machiavelli the prince is dampen of being feared than loved which contradicts the earlier views of Plato, who set a great emphasis on the pursuit of love as a major virtue.In chapter eighteen of The Prince Machiavelli argues that total honesty is only practicable in an ideal world. However, since the world is characterized by insincere men, a prince cannot be expected to honor all his pledges. Therefore he should purpose to use deception t o his benefit. Machiavelli uses the analogy of the play a joke on and the lion to encourage the prince to be some(prenominal) cunning and courageous. He explains that whereas the fox can recognize snares but cannot drive outside wolves, the lion can drive away wolves but cannot recognize snares (Machiavelli, 1998).In this he means that a prince does not need to own good qualities but should just issue to possess them, since subjects are only fire in outward appearances if they lead to a favorable end. It is from this view that the term Machiavellianism has been coined to in todays usage to mean the use of cunningness to achieve undue advantage over ones subjects. In comparison to the classical view of virtue, Machiavellis view lacks a moral sense.Machiavellis work on the prince has received colossal criticism from a large introductory including the Catholic Church. As the devils advocate, he seems to break away from the conventional virtues of his predecessors Plato and Aris totle openly deriding the church and its fundamentals. Whereas Plato and Aristotle relate alimentation virtuously to godliness, Machiavellis virtue involves trickery and subordinating atrocious means to practical ends.Realism, which Machiavelli subscribed to, has been defined as a cynical view to politics dedicate to furthering personal interests with no regard to moral or religious structures (Schaub, 1998). This view implies that a prince can be at odds with the moral virtue, a contradiction to the classical concept of virtue postulated by some(prenominal) Plato and Aristotle.At a glance of Machiavellis The Prince, we largely infer that he goes all out to ill advice the prince against the classical virtues of his predecessors. He seems to herald the triumph of evil over good. However, taking a critical manner at the work, one cannot help but notice gaps and disjunctions in the text. For example the characters he picks to illustrate his case. In showing the proper and effecti ve use of cruelty in chapter seventeen, he uses Hannibal and compares him to Scipio as compassionate and therefore ineffective. This is violently at odds with the justice and is ironic at the same judgment of conviction because Scipio accused of compassion defeats Hannibal at the combat of Zama (Machiavelli, 1998).Also, Machiavelli writes in Italian and not Latin, the language of the scholars of whom the princes are. This leaves the question as to who merely was his target audience. Was he really advising the princes who already knew how to be cruel or was it the subjects, and if the subjects then for what purpose. Therefore, just as much as we have illustrated how Machiavelli strays from the classical virtue, it rests upon the attentive contributor to ingest and make a personal judgment as to what Machiavelli really mean to put across.