Political Theorists, Niccolo Machiavelli And Socrates

First, he said a leader must be liked by enough of his people to avoid any type of uprising. He believed that anyone who spoke out against the prince must be gotten rid of. This is a major violation of one’s rights and something Socrates would have been outraged by. Plato starts The Apology by discussing how Socrates would teach the youth about his ideal government while openly criticizing the government of Athens. Socrates believed this type of free speech was necessary to form a fair and moral nation. Socrates also uses his trial as a symbol of free speech as he continued to speak out against the government there. He certainly would not have supported Machiavelli’s attempts to suppress free speech. Socrates goes so far as to say, “I made my defense speech like this: I much prefer to die having made my defense speech in this way than to live in that way” (The Apology 20). Here we see that Socrates is willing to die if it means he can speak freely. He truly thought free speech was the only way to check the government’s power and for the people to have a voice. At the time of his trial, speaking out against the Athenian government was almost unheard of and was considered a form of treason. Socrates wanted to use his trial as a way to criticize his leaders in the hope that more people would follow his lead. He believed free speech was necessary to

Niccolò Machiavelli, a Florentine philosopher and political aficionado from the 16th century and Socrates, a classical Athenian savant who lived during the 5th century B.C., are both judged as being forefathers to modern western political science and thought. The two great men both came from erratic epochs within their respective nations of Italy and Greece: wars, transitions of power, and domestic conflicts left their countries void of sustainable leadership and in desperate need of a brighter future. But despite being from equally hopeless times, their theories on how their societies (and ultimately, future ones) should function in order to prosper, are divergent. In this essay, I will argue that Socrates would

He proclaims that “examining both myself and others is really the very best thing that a man can do, and that life without this sort of examination is not worth living” (Plato 66). Socrates believes that the government will be able to change so that people who value goodness and truth would be in power. However, later in the Apology, Socrates contradicts himself when he explains why he has led a mostly private life, saying that “if I had long ago attempted to take part in politics, I should have died long ago” (Plato 58). Socrates believes “a man who really fights for justice must lead a private, not a public, life” (Plato 59). This goes against what he has been saying for the rest of the trial and demonstrates the unrealistic quality of the high standards to which he holds the government and leaders. If Socrates says it is dangerous for proponents of justice to live a public life, it becomes extremely difficult for politicians to be virtuous and morally good, since politicians live essentially their whole lives in the public sphere. It is not realistic for Socrates to believe that the government of Athens could progress so that good people hold the power, when he has shown that in his own experience and observations it is not safe for good people to hold public positions.

As philosophers, both Socrates and Niccolo Machiavelli developed theories in response to the warring political environment around them. However, the theories and principles developed by the two philosophers are vastly different in regard to the concept of truth, Socrates would hate Machiavelli’s model prince due to Machiavelli’s manipulative view of truth. While Socrates desired a state that focuses on fundamental truth and ethical decisions, Machiavelli advocated a state led by a pragmatic, logical, and even cruel decision maker. The difference between the two theories is stark, not only would Socrates disagree with Machiavelli’s concept of a prince, he would view the prince with utter

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 and Machiavelli both existed during times of political unrest. Both men sought different means of political leadership, and could be seen as activists of their times. During times of war and unrest, it was a bold choice that both men made to stand up for their beliefs and speak out against the system. However, Socrates wouldn’t have agreed with Machiavelli’s means and concepts of the Prince and his ideas for how a political establishment should function.

Socrates believed that a prince’s morality and ethics characterized a good leader whereas Machiavelli believed a ruler should use their power and fear to maintain control. Socrates would view Machiavelli’s concept of a prince as morally wrong and would not be supportive of a political system led by a Prince with a Machiavellian train of thought.

At first glance, Socrates and Machiavelli appear to have a lot in common.  They both lived in a time of political unrest and violence. They both dealt with uncertain surroundings in their societies. Most importantly, they both tried to use philosophy to improve their society. However, there was also an important difference between them. While Socrates was a moral philosopher whose goal was to search for truth and knowledge, Machiavelli was a political philosopher whose goal was to create a lasting society with a Prince that could hold power. Because of their clashing ideals, it is unlikely that Socrates would be supportive of a Machiavellian political system or Prince, though there are specific aspects of the society that Socrates would

The concept of fear as a tool and as a condition is present throughout the Prince. In what is likely his most famous quote, Machiavelli argues that “…it is much safer to be feared than loved…” (1950, p. 61). This implies that inspiring fear in one’s subjects is of great importance to the Prince, and that once again the means of doing this are secondary to the end goals. He also argues that the Prince himself should have a healthy amount of fear, both of his subjects and external threats, and that this fear will allow the Prince to preserve himself and therefore the state which he presides over (p. 67). Socrates would disagree with this fundamentally, for him it is not true that “…where there is fear there is also reverence…”, he would argue that in fact fear and reverence stand in sharp contrast to one another (Plato, 1987, p. 35). Using fear as a tool would not enable one to reach the ideal that Socrates espouses. He also addresses fear as a condition of a ruler by saying that a man should not consider life and death when making decisions, but again should only look to whether his actions are good and just. For him “…to be afraid of death is only another form of thinking that one is wise when one is not…” (pp. 59-60). Both Machiavelli and Socrates see fear as a part of human nature, but where Machiavelli sees fear as a weapon, Socrates sees weakness. A Prince that lived in a state of fear, while also using fear in order to gain and

Socrates self-description of himself as a gadfly is particularly novel in assessing whether he would agree with Machiavelli’s depiction of a prince. A self-described gadfly to the state would be problematic for Machiavelli’s ideal of a princedom. In chapter 3 when referring to new conquests added to a prince’s existing princedom, he talks about the keys to establishing and maintaining power in these new territories, one of which is to crush any opposition that exists, especially the powerful. This is important point, because in “Apology” Socrates was not accused of corrupting the poor, but corrupting the youth of the wealthy aristocrats which would likely change Machiavelli’s strategy in dealing with him. Machiavelli did not regard the public opinion of poor peasants, some of whom directly poor because of policies enacted by the prince, as legitimate threats to the prince or totality of the state. But when regarding the powerful he famously argues that men should either be caressed or destroyed, reasoning that if the prince is unable or unwilling to appease them, then it is important that he not only harms them, but harms them so severely that they will not be able to retaliate. It would be reasonable to assume that Socrates would be a man that under a Machiavellian regime, could not be appeased. Similar to how Machiavelli

Socrates and Niccolo Machiavelli were both incredibly influential in the development of Western philosophical thought, specifically in relation to ethics in politics. Machiavelli’s text The Prince, written during a period of political turmoil in Italy, outlines the necessary steps a prince must take to obtain both power and authority. Plato’s The Last Days of Socrates assesses the moral and ethical guidelines an ideal leader should possess through the beliefs and teachings of Socrates. While both texts had similar objectives, their opinions were quite contradictory. Socrates would have found Machiavelli’s concept of the “Prince”, and the government he creates to be both unethical and fundamentally flawed. Socrates places higher value on the maintenance and creation of justice, while Machiavelli stresses the process of obtaining and preserving power, unethical or not. Due to their differences in their ideas of virtue, knowledge, and justice it can be concluded that Socrates would not be supportive of the government in which The Prince proposes.

As a result, Machiavelli was unconcerned with justice as fairness, rather he regarded any action that strengthened the prince or the state as being just. He believed that the goal of preserving power was just and therefore any action taken to achieve this end was in turn just. This notion of justice stands in stark contrast to Socrates’ views as conveyed in The Apology.

He states “…the difficulties of maintaining hereditary states accustomed to a reigning family is far less than in new monarchies…” (Machiavelli, 5). Socrates may not oppose this first idea, but this sets up the rest of the book’s intentions which are how to rule most effectively, which Socrates may find very wrong. Machiavelli next goes into detail in The Prince on how this new leader should lead the people of his kingdom. He then tells a story about someone who was handed land and did everything correctly in his eyes but got very unlucky (Machiavelli, 1950). This person is Cesare Borgia, Duke of Valentinois. He was given territory by his father, Pope Alexander VI. He became a vicious ruler, one that Machiavelli extremely admired and claimed to have had ruled perfectly. Machiavelli admired how Borgia came into power and instantly took out any allies/armies he had a lack of trust with. Next, Borgia “…appointed Messer Remirro de Orco, a cruel and able man, to whom he gave the fullest authority” (Machiavelli, 27). This man was hired to keep control of the area and have everyone feel threatened so they wouldn’t be disobedient. But once Borgia found out this threatening figure running the land was causing people to dislike him as a leader, Borgia decided to cut Messer Remirro de Orco in half and display his body in the center of town. After displaying his body to the town, it “…caused the people both satisfaction

It is fundamentally important to preface the discussion hosted in this essay by addressing ourselves to the most mundane question-why consider Machiavelli in the context of philosophy, least of all, political philosophy? This question dominates any philosophical inquiries of the Machiavelli’s political ideologies. Put differently, do the contributions by Niccolò Machiavelli to the various salient discourses in the Western thought, most notably political theory, meet the requisite standard models of academic philosophy? Machiavelli essentially seems not to consider himself a philosopher. In fact, he overtly disapproved of any philosophical inquiries into his works. In addition, his credentials do not qualify him to be properly admitted within the realm of philosophy (NeDermAN, 2002).