Machiavelli Vs. Rousseau 's The Prince

The political situation that prompted Machiavelli to write The Prince was that Italy wasn’t a unified country yet. It was a bunch of city states.

    Many people in history have written about ideal rulers and states and how to maintain them.  Perhaps the most talked about and compared are Machiavelli's, The Prince and Plato's, The Republic.  Machiavelli lived at a time when Italy was suffering from its political destruction.  The Prince, was written to describe the ways by which a leader may gain and maintain power. In Plato?s The Republic, he unravels the definition of justice.  Plato believed that a ruler could not be wholly just unless one was in a society that was also just. His state and ruler was made up to better understand the meaning of justice.  It was not intended to be practiced like that of

In the article written by Vincent Barnett, he explains the different reasons that Machiavelli might have written “The Prince”. He also mentions the lasting effects of” The prince” and also mentioned how Machiavelli was ridiculed and judged for his brutally honest writing. Barnett mentioned that Machiavelli had lost his job as the secretary to the chancery in Florence. After losing his job he was arrested, tortured, and became extremely bitter. One of the possible motives for writing “The Prince” was that Machiavelli was trying to get reinstated back into his old job. Machiavelli could have also intended” The Prince” to hit the audience as satirical. Possibly to poke fun at all the failures of the political leaders and to make them look unintelligent.

Prompt 1: Machiavelli quite simply has a pessimistic view on humanity. As he mentions in, The Prince, “…it is necessary for anyone who organizes a republic and institutes laws to take for granted that all men are evil and that they always express the sickness of their spirit whenever they have the opportunity..(181-182).” I don't believe that Machiavelli thought that man was completely evil, but rather, they will do as they need to get what they want. He believed that man is quite fickle in nature, and whenever an opportunity in self gain presents itself, that man will take it. Man is weak, selfish, and corruptible. Rousseau on the other hand, didn’t share the less than ideal outlook at man.He said,

unique voices. While some philosophers have similar opinions on what it takes to be an effective leader, such as intelligence and worldliness, there are many that disagree on traits they find beneficial. The reasons for these disagreements are vast but one of the crucial factors are the societies and historical eras these authors were nurtured within. Through their own experiences with government and turmoil, philosophers are able to give their critiques on government and human nature as a whole. Socrates and Machiavelli, both philosophers in what it means to be a proper leader and the role of the people within a society, share contrasting views.

Machiavelli writes The Prince centuries after Plato documents Socrates in Crito and The Apology. Despite the different time periods, both Machiavelli and Socrates experience times of turmoil where the concept of democracy was questioned. However, the different time periods cause the views and purposes of Machiavelli’s writing to largely differ from Socrates. Machiavelli writes in a time of turmoil where Italy was a bunch of small, fragmented states and when the Medici’s struggled to regain power after being expelled. This causes his views to be more cynical and pessimistic in comparison to Socrates. If Socrates were to read The Prince, he would disagree with Machiavelli’s beliefs and deem his portrayal of a prince as immoral. Their

99). Rousseau viewed property as a right “which is different from the right deducible from the law of nature” (Rousseau, p. 94). Consequently, “the establishment of one community made that of all the rest necessary…societies soon multiplied and spread over the face of the earth” (Rousseau, p. 99). Many political societies were developed in order for the rich to preserve their property and resources. Rousseau argues that these societies “owe their origin to the differing degrees of inequality which existed between individuals at the time of their institution,” (Rousseau, p. 108). Overall, the progress of inequality could be constructed into three phases. First, “the establishment of laws and of the right of property” (Rousseau, p. 109) developed stratification between the rich and poor. Then, “the institution of magistracy” and subsequently “the conversion of legitimate into arbitrary power” (Rousseau, p. 109) created a dichotomy between the week and powerful, which ultimately begot the power struggle between slave and master. According to Rousseau, “there are two kinds of inequality among the human species…natural or physical, because it is established by nature…and another, which may be called moral or political inequality, because it… is established…by the consent of men,” (Rousseau, p. 49).

   Machiavelli states that "it is necessary for a prince, who wishes to maintain himself, to learn how not to be good, and use this knowledge and not use it, according to the necessity of the case." Machiavelli's ideas both compare and contrast to the methods used by Hamlet. Hamlet's desire to drive the king mad and eventually kill him, is what he thinks he must do in order to set things right. Hamlet struggles to maintain his position as prince. Perhaps he lacks the essential qualities of a prince outlined by Machiavelli.

To fully understand the context of Machiavelli and his purpose of The Prince an overview of the notable events of his life is needed. Born in 1469, he was a citizen of Florence, Italy. The political climate of Machiavelli’s home of Florence had changed dramatically following his return from his decade in Rome as a young adult. He served his native Florence in various capacities from 1494 to 1512 (Wiethoff, 1974: 99) but much of this time there was turbulence in government. Florence was facing the invasion of King Charles VIII of France, leading to the banishing of the entire Medici family from Florence.

In The Prince, Machiavelli explains what a good and successful prince should be like. He advocates a strong, cutthroat authority figure and encourages the winning of power by any means necessary. The main theme in The Prince is that mob rule is dangerous, for people know only what is good for themselves and not what is good for the whole. The common people, in Machiavelli’s view, “are ungrateful, fickle, liars, and deceivers, they shun danger and are greedy for profit; while you treat them well, they are yours”. He believes that these commoners should be

In sum Machiavelli and Rousseau lived entirely different lives even though they didn’t really agree w each other’s ideas they did have similarities in their thoughts. Maviavelli and Rousseau both disliked factions, groups with a political purpose, often described as a "party within a party." Both of them distinguish between "conflicts that serve to protect and even invigorate the foundational principles of liberty from those that seek to advance private interests."They believe that conflict between the public and their leaders is necessary at times. Machiavelli and

Throughout the course of history, political philosophy has been dominated by two great thinkers: Niccolo Machiavelli and Socrates. Although both highly influential, Socrates and Machiavelli may not see eye to eye. When it comes to the idea of how an “ideal prince” would act, Machiavelli believes that they should lead through fear and follow a thirst for power, no matter the cost. Socrates, on the other hand, believes that they should lead through morality and have a healthy thirst for knowledge. Overall, these two would not exactly agree on what the actions of a good leader would look like or how a political system should be run.

The Prince is essentially a guide book on how to acquire and maintain political power. We can think of it as a collection of rules and methods to achieve a level of superior authority. Its main focus is that the ends—no matter how immoral—justify the means for preserving political authority. While some may agree with this mindset of thinking many today dismiss Machiavelli as a cynic. The book shows rulers how it is that they should act to survive in the real world to maintain authority. While Niccolo Machiavelli’s ideas can be radical, they helped to spark a revolution in political philosophy. Although his ideas might have not been completely original, they were very different and unheard of at the time, The Prince, was published. Machiavelli uses many methods to convey his messages including biblical comparisons and of course metaphors. This character can be viewed in several manners. He is almighty and powerful, stopping at nothing to achieve his goals or have his ways. While this quality does qualify him to be a might leader it also raises the question of immorality. How far will one go to maintain order? Would you stop at nothing to achieve this task? Machiavelli shows this by saying, “it is

A family of monarchy which tortured Machiavelli for months causing him great suffrage and sorrow. He writes to Lorenzo “May I trust, therefore, that Your Highness will accept this little gift in the spirit in which it is offered: and if Your Highness will deign to peruse it, you will recognize in it my ardent desire that you may attain to that grandeur which fortune and your own merits presage for you.” This enough is confusing because if this is the same principality that caused so much suffering why dedicate a book to let their reign continue into longevity? As to add to this confusion, Machiavelli explains how a prince should use cruelty and violence correctly against the people. To use cruelty and punishment all at once so that the people learn to respect you by fear. He includes that if you had a choice on either being loved or feared, be feared for love can change as quick as it came. Fear of punishment, people would avoid and be subservient. He also goes on to put out that a prince must be cunning like a fox yet strong and fearsome like a lion. To use Realpolitik, morality and ideology left out for the world is not these things as you should not be as well. Furthermore, Machiavelli explains what must happen when a new ruler overtakes a new city and the people in it. “And whoever becomes the ruler of a free city and does not destroy it, can expect to be destroyed by it,

At the turn of the 16th century, the Italian Peninsula was marred in brutal conflicts. Nations across Europe, such as France, Spain and the Holy Roman Empire constantly raged wars to keep each other out of the numerous territories around Italy. During this tumultuous time period, a man named Niccolo Machiavelli studied in Florence and witnessed firsthand the issues that rulers often faced while attempting to conquer these Italian cities. His experiences prompted him to write a literary work on his opinion of the ruling class, and his philosophy on how rulers should rule over their subjects. However, his novel The Prince, is an interesting outlier of the time, as parts of it contradict the popular social view of Humanism, which focused on the