Socrates And Machiavelli

However, Machiavelli's implies that a leader who strives to be loved would avoid punishing his people; hence this leader is vulnerable to a transgression by his people since there are no repercussions for opposing his rule. The example of Scipio he used portrays this perfectly as his army rebelled due to his kindness. The absence of repercussions for opposing a prince hence can lead to their authority being undermined, which suggests that it is better for a prince to be loved rather than feared. However, this ignores that people can be blinded by their love for a leader, robbing them of their ability to transgress in the way that he describes; the supporter of President Trump demonstrates this perfectly.

Machiavelli led us to a question that was continuously in disagreement. That question was “Is it better to be loved than feared, or vice versa” (p.392)? Machiavelli thought that one is to be loved & feared. Nevertheless, at the same time it’s tremendously hard to achieve being both loved & feared. Machiavelli believed that if one had to do without one of them that it would be a safer to be feared than to be loved. For example if a ruler was more loved than feared then if you served their men’s interest & were also devoted to them they would promise you their blood, possessions, lives, & children until you needed help because once you needed help you were on our own. If you’re more feared than loved then when you’re in trouble your

Machiavelli tackles the question “is it better to be loved or feared by people?”. Giving his insight on the matter, it is clear to see the benefits and downside to both. Every prince should desire to be perceived as a kind ruler rather than cruel one. However, he must avoid misusing or overusing his compassion. Cesare Borgia was considered cruel, yet his oppressiveness ended up resulting in peace and unity in Romagna (Machiavelli,trans; W. K. Marriott). Meanwhile on the other hand of mercifulness, when the Florentines tried to avoid cruelty, this allowed Pistoia to be destroyed (Machiavelli,trans; W. K. Marriott). Machiavelli argues once a

Machiavelli also presents the idea that the power of a leader depends more on the qualities of the man than on of god. Thats the matter, loved and feared-qualities need there limits the same way as anything else in a social relation. Machiavelli himself stating that a man who makes himself loved than who makes himself feared; the reason is that love is a link to obligation, which men, because they are rotten, and will break any time soon. Machiavelli complicates the nation of good as purely subordinate power, arguing that the excess of “good” can actually do harm. In this case too much clemency can lead to uprisings and civil war. Cruelty what Machiavelli believes in, states that it can serve the greater good. I personally disagree with Machiavelli's text, I think love is stronger than fear. A commander loved by his soldiers will defeat a commander feared by his soldiers in almost all battles, but the feared commander is less subject to arbitrary chance. Its not only love that can destroy a man, so can fear.

Machiavelli thinks it is better for the prince to be feared than loved. For a prince who is loved will be compassionate towards others, mainly his soldiers. When danger is at bay his men will hold him in the highest regard. Should an attack occur they will very quickly turn their backs on him. He may be viewed as weak and untrustworthy, thus easier to overtake. As he explains, “And men are less hesitant about harming someone who makes himself loved than one who makes himself feared because love is held together by a chain of obligation which, since men are a sorry lot, is broken on every occasion in which their own self-interest is concerned: but fear is held together by dread of punishment which will never abandon you” (p.46). If he is loved rather than hated he can never keep an army of soldiers under his command. However, he must not be so feared to the point he is hated to do so he must not take what does not belong to him, and keep his hands off the wives of his subjects.

In my attempt to compare the past and the present, I must explain to you the inner thoughts and workings of an ancient icon known as Niccolo Machiavelli on his publication “The Prince”. To do this, I must first start with explaining the brighter side of an ill fate. William Enfield suggested that “The Prince” was a ridicule of Machiavelli’s own perception of political leaders in his time. All in all, declaring that the book was written to “pull off the face of tyranny” and that “men were always fickle, liars, and deceivers” (Enfield, William) as the reporter points out in his article summary as well. Machiavelli’s personality makes this idea a double standard because of the fact that he wrote of breaking the bond of love and even trust if

Socrates and Machiavelli seem to have been incredibly different people. Socrates did what he felt was just, despite the laws. He stood by his actions, even

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

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

He believes so strongly that individuals should act morally in every aspect of their lives that he spends a lot of time questioning the morality of public figures. Socrates says of these authorities, “I shall question him and examine him and put him to the test; and if it appears that in spite of his profession he has made no real progress towards goodness, I shall reprove him for neglecting what is of extreme importance, and giving his attention to trivialities” (56). Socrates would not approve of a leader who did not act ethically as a leader, as well as an individual.

According to Machiavelli's view of how to be an effective leader, a ruler should be one who is feared but not hated. Machiavelli states that fear is better than love because love is unreliable. All of the reasons that Machiavelli gives relate to how human nature controls men and drives them to commit crimes in order to reach their goals and satisfy themselves.

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.

Plato’s Socrates is a character plagued and prized with contradictions. He professed to care for nothing so much as virtue and human excellence but was incriminated by the greatest and most open democracy in ancient history. He was wrongfully convicted, yet unwilling to avoid his unjust execution. He is at once the most Athenian, citizenly, patriotic, and other-regarding of philosophers—and yet the most critical and self-regarding of Athenians. In exploring that contradiction, between “Socrates the loyal Athenian citizen” and “Socrates the philosophical critic of Athenian society,” Aristotle’s Politics comes to mind: “the

Machiavelli ties virtue very closely to that of prudence. He defines virtue as acting exceptionally and draws a distinction between morality and virtue. In many respects Machiavelli defines virtue by prudence. If a ruler is able to balance his violence, keep his subjects appeased, and have a dire understanding of his threats, then in Machiavelli's eyes the ruler has a strong virtue. What must be understood is that the throne is always in jeopardy and someone is always there to try to knock the prince off his pedestal. This is a prime understanding that a prince must have, and fuels the infamous argument by Machiavelli that it is better to be feared than loved. Machiavelli explains that, for the most part, love is very subjective and eventually will subside unless further concessions are made to appease his subjects. In addition, people only care about their personal conveniences and a prince would have to overextend himself if he were to be loved by all. Fear, however, is not subjective and has a universal effect on all his people. Fear can be attained by sporadic violent acts. One must understand, however, that massive amounts of violence can not be done because it would portray the Prince as tyrant, and might stir up his people to revolt against him. The acts must be calculated, concise, and serve a direct purpose not only to his benefit but to the

In the book, The Prince, Niccolo Machiavelli thoroughly explains the lifestyle a proper prince should uphold and the skills/actions he should keep in his arsenal, if the time ever comes. I’ve chosen chapters 15, 16, and 17 to further my claims on whether or not these ideas should be used in today’s government. Chapter 15 mainly focuses on the things for which men, but mainly princes, are praised or blamed for in an everyday society. Chapter 16 touches on how often one should be generous and liberal. Finally, chapter 17, the most controversial chapter of Machiavelli’s book discussed among many, tells the famous line of whether it is better to be loved