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
wish to live without his search for truth. Socrates would see a Machiavellian Prince as self-centered, and void of morals. A Machiavellian prince would not appreciate the way Socrates carried himself and would see him as a challenge to his authority. Socrates would not support a Machiavellian society because most likely he would not be free to philosophize as he wished to and would not approve of the methods used by the prince. The discussion that follows is of the ideals of Machiavelli and Socrates
concluded that he would not find Machiavelli’s version of “the Prince” to be the ideal ruler, or preside over a completely prosperous society. Although, Socrates may have disagreed with many of the aspects of what Machiavelli thought the Prince should be, he would, however, be supportive of the Prince’s political system overall because of his belief that every man has a duty to follow and uphold the laws of the society in which they live.
The platform for political science brought to us by Aristotle, had structuralized the forms and functions of government with little attention to conflict. Whereas, in Machiavelli’s work, we explore new notions of statecraft concerning power, fear and interests. Machiavelli’s work is pulled together from thousands of years’ worth of written history and studies of conflict compared to Aristotle’s work, circa 350 B.C. concerned with proportion and constitutions which consists mostly of observations
Traditional and Contemporary Issues and Challenges FIRST THINGS FIRST Coke Needs Shaking Up “We feel pretty good about the way the company is moving. We just have bumps in the road that are so doggone visible.” —JIMMY WILLIAMS, DIRECTOR, COCA-COLA chapter 2 At the peak of Coca-Cola’s dominance of the soft-drink industry, about 1996, the company seemed invincible. Coke’s then-CEO Roberto Goizueta and many industry observers dismissed PepsiCo as a loser in the cola wars. Goizueta convinced