Similarities Between The Fox And The Lion Machiavelli

When a prince is in need of force, he must channel his inner beast. Machiavelli believes that it is good to be both a fox and a lion, but it is wiser to be a cunning fox because lions are stupid. Machiavelli says, “It is necessary to be a fox to discover the snares and a lion to terrify wolves… Those who rely simply on the lion do not understand what they are about… He who has known best how to employ the fox has succeeded best.” What he means is that foxes are cunning and smart enough to get out of traps, but they are not able to defend themselves against wolves. Lions on the other hand are perfectly capable of keeping the wolves at bay, however they are susceptible to traps He says that lions are stupid as where foxes are cunning and thus it is better to be a fox. As a fox, the prince would know when and where to keep his promises as long as it still benefits him.

He discusses that the prince have military knowledge, love and fear, trustworthiness, and good and bad reputations. He deeply believes in the art of war. "...a prince must not have any objective nor any thought, nor take up any art, other than the art of war and its ordering and discipline; because it is the only art that pertains to him who commands. And it is of such virtue that not only does it maintain those who were born princes, but many times makes men rise to that rank from private station; and conversely one sees that when princes have thought more of delicacies than of arms, they have lost their state." He also writes about whether it is better to be loved or feared, stating that it is best to be feared, but not hated. Love can change in an instant, and it is better to always have control, even if the prince must be feared. Patriotism and dedication to the state was also a very important aspect. In conclusion, Machiavelli strived for power and strength by any means possible. Through violence and fear, the end result would be worth it to him.

Machiavelli recommends the rulers to follow the good qualities, unless needs to protect himself from a vice who would not lose the state for him or be prudent enough to escape a vice who would lose the state for him.

Despite living thousands of years ago, Socrates and Machiavelli were both influential thinkers whose works are still relevant today. These two great thinkers and philosophers wrote about and extensively studied political systems. The influences of their work can still be seen today in constitutions and governments around the world. Were it not for their transcendent works, there is a real chance today’s systems of government would look very different. While no governments today exactly match those advocated for by Machiavelli and Socrates, their writings surely influenced other thinkers later on in history. Both of these philosophers advocated for different leadership structures with the hope of creating fair and long-lasting states.

In Machiavelli’s “The Prince”, Machiavelli is able to express and display his own theories and views on how a prince should act in certain situations. The style that Machiavelli uses to explain himself it is very straight forward and most of the time the opposite of what people would think. Machiavelli’s concept of being a lion and fox appears in Somadeva’s “The Red Lotus of Chastity” , where two of the main characters Devasmita and the nun, Yogakarandita, both attempt to follow Machiavelli’s concept of being a fox and a lion. However, Devasmita is the only one that fully uses Machiavelli’s concept and comes out with a victory against the nun, which on the other hand did not use both attributes but instead pretended to.

Niccolò Machiavelli suggested in The Prince that a ruler should behave as both a fox and a lion, being both loved and feared. There are clever rulers who were strategic, courageous rulers who were effective, and successful rulers who possessed both qualities. Elizabeth I of England and Henery IV of France were two great rulers from Europe that were able to personify Machiavelli 's advice.

Machiavelli’s interpretation of human nature was greatly shaped by his belief in God. In his writings, Machiavelli conceives that humans were given free will by God, and the choices made with such freedom established the innate flaws in humans. Based on that, he attributes the successes and failure of princes to their intrinsic weaknesses, and directs his writing towards those faults. His works are rooted in how personal attributes tend to affect the decisions one makes and focuses on the singular commanding force of power. Fixating on how the prince needs to draw people’s support, Machiavelli emphasizes the importance of doing what is best for the greater good. He proposed that working toward a selfish goal, instead of striving towards a better state, should warrant punishment. Machiavelli is a practical person and always thought of pragmatic ways to approach situations, applying to his notions regarding politics and

Instead, realists hold that there is some basic idea about nature and requirements of morality, or moral intuitions that guide us (Beitz, 17). Even among realists, there are some with more extreme positions about morality and ethics in international relations. Machiavelli argues that morality can be broken when necessary in order to maintain the state, or perhaps even expand the state. To this end, the prince should be amoral and self-aggrandizing (Beitz, 21). Machiavelli is not justifying unwarranted cruelty, “The prince should not deviate from what is good, if possible, but be able to do evil if constrained” (Beitz, 21). Rulers are permitted to break the shared idea of morality when they are doing so in order to protect the state from intrusion or vulnerability in international relations. Machiavelli posits perhaps the most rigid realists perspective on international relations. The basic notion is that governments and individuals that have different moral responsibilities and individual responsibilities value morality much more than the state.

Machiavelli and Socrates agree on very little. While an initial reading of the two may elicit some comparisons, the goals of their respective philosophies rely on different foundations, and would therefore culminate in very different political results for society. Socrates would likely see in the Prince a selfish ruler, while Machiavelli would see in Socrates a dangerous idealist whose ideas would lead to instability and the death of the state in which these ideas were implemented. Machiavelli’s philosophy of the Prince would not satisfy Socrates because instead of focusing on right action, the Prince is encouraged to put political expediency and self-preservation above all else. In addition, the type of political system that Machiavelli’s

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.

Machiavelli says that a ruler must be a combination of a fox and a lion. A ruler needs to have the cunning mind of a fox but also needs to have the strength of a lion so that he can destroy anyone who opposes him.

Machiavelli believed wicked means were to be used to achieve a virtuous outcome. In his eyes, a successful ruler was able to balance ethical virtue with harsh, sometimes even merciless pragmatism.11 If this meant partaking in the most ruthless acts of murder, brutalizing,

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.

Niccolo Machiavelli stressed that “one ought to be both feared and loved, but as it is difficult for the two to go together, it is much safer to be feared than loved…for love is held by a chain of obligation which, men being selfish, is broken whenever it serves their purpose; but fear is maintained by a dread of punishment which never fails.” He felt that a true leader must be cunning and deceptive, winning the hearts of his people through power and influence. If he could not be liked, he could at least get by knowing he has intimidated these below him into submission. However rash or cruel this may seem, Machiavelli’s argument is not one to be countered easily.

One must constantly expect the unexpected. A fox is capable of being cunning, deceitful, and strategic. A ruler whom breaks there word at the right moment can strategize accordingly. He can deceive any trusting person whom would vests trust in him. Thus being fox-like places a ruler at advantage. In Morality And Politics (Page 9) “Since men (the people governed) are bad and would not observe their faith with the prince, he is not obliged or expected to keep faith with them. And the prince should, if possible, pretend a good man: full of mercy, kindness, loyalty and honesty, however he may at any necessary moment need to cast free of those virtuous limitations.” A prudent ruler should expect the unexpected. Lest he trust those whom he falls into agreement to, he would be played a fool. A prince never truly trusts anyone. Those whom serve him are potential rivals. They appear loyal only for appearance. When convenience arises they would do away with him. Thus a leader is forced to be a fox and play upon his followers trusting nature. He never truly vests any real commitments in words. This quote shows us that a ruler breaks his word because it would leave him vulnerable. A leader whom honors his commitment would be vulnerable. Thus a ruler breaks his word of political defensiveness and offensiveness. A ruler becomes a fox, because he expects to be betrayed, he deceives them with virtue. Now I will explore the hidden necessities of ruling that Machiavelli