Comparing Machiavelli And Plato

Towards the end of Socrates' defense he states, " They enjoy hearing these being questioned who think they are wise, but are not." Socrates is telling the jury that he has been honest with them and that he does not corrupt the youth, the youth and others follow him around for the reason in quotations. This was Socrates' defense.

            On the contrary, Plato's idea of the ruler is almost exactly the opposite that of Machiavelli's.  Plato's reason for his ideal ruler and state was to explain the meaning of justice. One must examine what it means for a state to be just and what it means for a person to be just to truly understand the meaning of justice.  According to Socrates, ??if we first tried to observe justice in some larger thing that possessed it, this would make it easier to observe in a single individual. We agreed that this larger thing is a city?(Plato 96).?  Plato?s ideal ruler must have a good mind, always be truthful, have knowledge and discipline, and not be afraid of death.  The ruler is a philosopher that satisfies the four virtues of wisdom, courage, moderation/self-control, and justice.

In Plato’s Apology and Crito, Socrates laid out a form of social contract theory that set the stage for many political philosophers to build upon. Having been sentenced to his death and accused of conspiring against the Laws of Athens, Plato provided insight into his teacher’s views of virtue and justice. For Socrates, virtue is the search for wisdom. It is a moral philosophy that a constant examination of life and pursuit of wisdom will lead to a virtuous life. The moral underpinning in this thinking is that man is inherently good and that evil exists only when people fail to seek out a virtuous life. In his Apology, Socrates challenged his accusers in their efforts to obtain riches “but care not nor take any thought for wisdom and truth, and for your soul, how it maybe made most perfect?” (Apology, 31). Throughout the centuries as political theory evolved, moral philosophies often adapted to the political environment around them. Some of them, such as Machiavelli’s writings in The Prince, leaned toward a more pragmatic view and monarchial governing system rather than Socrates’ notion of an accessible and democratic government. In Machiavelli’s The Prince, Machiavelli composes a guidebook for Lorenzo de Medici, the ruler of Florence in 1492, explaining how a person can successfully attain and maintain power. It is doubtful that Socrates would have easily accepted these philosophical underpinnings of Machiavelli’s concept of a Prince due to his completely opposite viewpoints

statement, however, can be interpreted in two ways- in a Machiavellian state where one can accept this idea then strive for a world filled with order and stability, or a Socratic state where people should be just and fair even though they do not live in that kind of world. Socrates believes to an extent that this world is not the one that gets to judge you, but it is in fact in the afterlife- where one faces the gods- that matters. He would see Machiavelli’s prince as illegitimate depending on how he obtained and maintained power. For Socrates, a Prince that enables the suppression of ideas and of questioning is one that has no merit and no wisdom. There are three points in which Socrates would disagree with Machiavelli’s tactics. One being the use of violence- an inherent injustice to Socrates- on any person. The other is the use of money or material to bribe enemies, turning them into temporary friends. Lastly, Socrates would take issue with responsibility- to not only ones self, but for ones people. It is in these three points that which the ideals and virtues held so close to Socrates are destroyed in the name of peace and order.

On the heels of the Peloponnesian war, Socrates was blamed for corrupting the youth and disrespecting the Athenian gods and Athenian values. His defense or “Apology” and reaction after he was sentenced to death in “Crito” demonstrate his most basic philosophy and ideals of what a government should truly be like. Yet in a vastly different situation, Machiavelli, who lived during the renaissance of Italy experienced constant shifts of power which he wrote his book, “The Prince”. Machiavelli writes about how a leader or prince should conduct himself in order to keep and efficiently run a republic or principality. Although Socrates’ texts on the surface deal with his accusations, the texts give great insight as to how he thinks a government

Socrates opened his case by asking the jury to listen to him openly and to pardon him if he went into his usual style of speaking. His accusers had already spoken against him in the flowery manner common in courts of law. Socrates said that his accusers' speeches contained great refinement and skill, and he lacked the ability to speak so well. However, he said that he would speak the truth while his opponents lied. Socrates also stated that while his accusers’ speeches were

He uses phrases such as, beg of you and grant me this favor trying to win the mercy of the court. Socrates wanted the audience to be in his frame of mind by understanding the "language" in which he spoke. He made the assumption that the accusers were the ones that were lying through their eloquent words and phrases and he was just using plain style because he was telling the whole truth and was not hiding anything. Here he was insinuating that the accusers were manipulative and can not be trusted. Because there were so many people in the court he also used plain style so that everyone would be able to understand him and that he could talk to each member of the court. In the conclusion to Socrates's speech, he said that if he were destroyed, he would be destroyed with the other good men who have died and would probably be the death of many more. Socrates ends with this because he wanted to leave the court with a heavy heart and to insinuate that innocent men, such as himself, have been sentenced to death and he is sure that he will not be the last. Socrates almost seemed to have an arrogant tone in his speech in which he didn't seem to fully show respect for the court. It almost seemed as if he was talking down to them. He was interrupted several times in

Socrates believed the possession of virtue was a highly valued characteristic. Although Socrates gives no clear definition of virtue it can be inferred that he is referring to the moral responsibility to do the right thing despite your own personal interest. According to Socrates, an ideal leader should be virtuous in their decisions in order to create a society founded on justice. To Machiavelli it is more important to act like you

Socrates’ contradicting views are presented when he claims, “Not from money does virtue come, but from virtue comes money and all of the other good things for human beings both privately and publicly” (Apology, 30b). Socrates disputes that fortuna comes from virtue and presents a cause and effect relationship, contrary to the interconnected relationship as presented by Machiavelli. A prince should use philosophical thinking to question and explore many ideas in order to amass success. Just having money and luck, on the other hand, will not lead to more success because the prince is unable to think about how he can execute his rulings. Through his views, he connotes how the ruler cannot start his reign with both fortuna and virtue. This contradicts with Machiavelli’s prince because Socrates disputes the lack of emphasis on fortune.

Socrates’ ideal Prince is much different than that of Machiavelli. Socrates found great power in his analysis of Athens, rather than direct involvement. Through questioning, reason, and critical analysis he attempts to instill wisdom, truth and virtue in Athens, specifically in the youth. He was charged with corrupting the youth because his idea of how life should be lived was much different than that of the states. Socrates corrupted the youth of Athens because he degenerated or undeveloped them from becoming strong political, economic, and military leaders. The people of Athens, in particular the wealthy and powerful, wanted their children to be educated in ideals that Machiavelli would support. It was the job for these privileged youth to learn how to be strong leaders so the city could run smoothly in the future and Socrates was undermining this structure. If the youth Socrates was teaching were treated as a counterpart to Machiavelli’s Prince, a difference in ideals and teachings can be found. Machiavelli teaches his Prince how to maintain power at all costs, while Socrates teaches his students to put aside the concept of materialistic power such as wealth and

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 wisdom, courage, temperance and justice whereas, Machiavelli focuses on boldness, adaptation, prudence and foresight. In this paper I will focus on the differences and similarities between Plato and Machiavelli’s accounts of virtue, what virtues each finds valuable for political life and how they contribute to the health of the state. I will also touch on how the theorists’ accounts of virtue deviate from one another and what that tells us about the approaches each takes in regards to the political life.

It is highly debated what type of ideal king is the better type of ideal king. Both philosophers, Plato and Machiavelli, have their own separate version of what the best and most ideal king would look like. Plato’s version of the ideal king can be found along with a description in Plato’s Republic Book 6. He describes a king raised in philosophy, and a regimented education plan. Machiavelli’s king can be found with a description in Machiavelli’s The Prince. This king is best summarized as a “might is right” type of fellow. The Philosopher King is a better king because he has been educated by the people, for the people.

Plato and Machiavelli seek to examine necessary qualities leaders should possess to rule successfully. Plato’s examination of leaders can be considered deontologist (wherein morality determines decision-making) and idealistic whereas Machiavelli’s examination is consequentialist (weighing potential consequences determines decision-making) and realistic. Using primary evidence from Plato’s The Republic and Niccolò Machiavelli’s The Prince as well as an examination of controversial leaders like Donald Trump, I will argue that Machiavelli’s ruler traits to a state are superior to Plato’s since they are more realistic of human nature of political actors.

As Socrates approaches the court during his trial, it becomes evident that he is fighting more than just one accusation; Socrates is defending himself against the countless, unresearched accusations that have been made years before, developing the audience’s bias and premature decision of Socrates’ fate. Therefore, Socrates believes he has a right to state these

While set in similar historical contexts, The Prince, the Apology and Crito can be analyzed for their contrasting political ideologies and potential applications in society. It is from Machiavelli’s understanding that a prince’s objective should be to rise to a position of power and maintain that status through necessary means. In order to maintain power, a successful prince can manipulate situations strategically in his favor, take advantage of a given opportunity in which he feels that he would prevail, and have the confidence to harness his unique set of skills. This desired power can be obtained through means such as violence, good fortune, and preferably, through the prince’s own arms (The Prince, II p.6). Socrates, a man who prioritizes morality and the stipulations of law, would evaluate the prince as an immoral ruler that consequently created an unjust political system that prioritizes the well-being and status of the prince himself. This paper will further discuss Socrates’ unfavorable point of view of the Machiavellian prince, followed by an analysis of his disdain towards the prince’s political operations.