Socrates And Machiavelli

Although both are considered some of the greatest political and philosophical thinkers of their respective times, Socrates and Niccoló Machiavelli had very different methods and beliefs of how a political system should be run. The mindset of Socrates can be seen in the works Apology and Crito by Plato. Socrates, who values wisdom and justice over power and prestige, would view Machiavelli’s concept of a Prince very contradicting to how he believes a good life should be lived. In his work, The Prince, Machiavelli details how a prince should rule and maintain power. Socrates would not be supportive of Machiavelli and his Prince’s political system because it is rooted in unethical behaviors. Machiavelli views these actions as virtues

Socrates did what many could never do, he knowingly defied instinct, and chose his values over his own life. From his actions alone we can conclude that Socrates’ ideal leader is one who would act in line with the pursuit of goodness, morality, and truth. A leader appreciated by Socrates would have traits such as introspection, pursuing moral outcomes, and not sticking to a status quo for the sake of it just being generally accepted. Machiavelli, conversely, through The Prince, asserts his end and goal to be power and the use of power to ensure stability. The means towards achieving this end, at least by Socratic standards, are comparably much more immoral.

Niccolo Machiavelli and Socrates both lived during turbulent, political times. Machiavelli in Florence, Italy and Socrates in Athens. Machiavelli’s The Prince outlines the necessary features and traits of a sovereign, primarily, a Prince. It served as a handbook to effective rulership in the 16th century. By analyzing Machiavelli’s belief that a prince should be strategically feared, the role of free will , and the role of the people , I will argue that Machiavelli has an ally in Socrates. I will also address the counterargument that Machiavelli and Socrates wouldn't have seen eye to eye, specifically on a prince’s focus on war.

Socrates was a man who sought goodness and wisdom above all else, and would find Machiavelli’s concept of a prince to be a leader void of these qualities. Socrates would be critical of a Machiavellian prince’s character and actions for failing to meet his morally absolute standard of goodness, and of the Machiavellian prince’s notion of wisdom for conflicting with his own. Socrates would not be supportive of the political system formed under a Machiavellian prince, the perpetuation of which inherently clashes with his stringent moral absolutism and ideals of devotion to one’s country.

Socrates and Niccolò Machiavelli were both political philosophers who lived through corruption, violence, and political restlessness. These circumstances prompted them to develop their own solutions for their respective societies. This included the creation of a stable political system with a strong and effective leader through the examination of the faults of said societies. To Machiavelli, this leader is known as the “Prince.” He believes that the Prince should be pragmatic in his actions, and act with the good of the state in mind or in other words, he believes in statecraft. He believed that the Prince should be someone with good foresight and does not act without recklessly. The Prince has to be willing to do what is necessary to

Socrates, in his early works, maintained a steadfast distance from involvement in politics, making a comparison or evaluation of a political system in his persona technically impossible. To claim that Socrates would or would not be supportive of any political system might then seem irresponsible, a presumptuous analysis not fitting for an academic recognizing the false equivalence between Socrates’ philosophy and Machiavelli’s political ethics. The strategy to conduct any sort of liable and valid analysis is not to wholly ignore the “political” part of the system but to evaluate

Both Plato and Machiavelli profoundly shaped contemporary political philosophy and earnestly gave thought to the nature of politics. While Socrates asserts that an ideal ruler is one who values self-knowledge and the examined life, Machiavelli favors a “Prince” who is unafraid to put the state above all matters. Socrates would entirely reject Machiavelli’s concept of a “Prince.” He would also refuse to support a political system where sovereignty lay within a Prince, as the prince does not care for his subjects; rather, he cares about his own pursuit of power and would create a political system to further his own agenda. Socrates would argue that the Prince does not have a distinct political or moral compass of his own and cannot be trusted

Often when analyzing key political shifts, one evaluates great men who reformed political theory. Niccoló Machiavelli and Aristotle are shinning examples of great men of history, and they both had large contributions to political philosophy. Machiavelli and Aristotle’s ways of thinking varied very much. Machiavelli believed that a prosperous state would revolve around fear. Whereas Aristotle believed that a state that revolved around the principles of trust, and a humble leader were the keys to its success. Although both of these thinkers’ ideas are now partially out-dated as they were written in both Medieval Europe and Ancient Greece, however their ideas continue to exist in modern civilization.

Socrates derived the lifelong sense of the importance of implicit obedience to lawful authority and the reverence for strict constitutionality which led him later in life to oppose violation of the constitution at great personal risk

Niccolo Machiavelli’s “The Prince” provides guidelines for how the leader of a state should conduct himself, and the actions he should take to consolidate and maintain power. While Socrates does not explicitly discuss what he believes a good leader should do and how he should act in either “Apology” or ”Crito”, he presents his opinion on how men in general should conduct themselves, and how a government should be run. Based on the accounts given, Socrates would vehemently disagree with Machiavelli’s concept of an ideal prince. The values that Machiavelli believes a prince should have and the courses of action he should take as a leader are inconsistent with how Socrates believes men should conduct themselves. In turn, the type of political

For Socrates doing the right thing is simply doing what is good, which he believes would

Machiavelli and Socrates are two people who lived during times of great instability, political fragmentation, and war. Living in these times helped form their views on the role of government in a society, and these views are accurately depicted in The Prince: And the Discourses by Machiavelli, and Plato’s account of Socrates in The Apology and Crito. Although these pieces were written at different moments in time, it is safe to say that the arguments of both authors are similar in theory, but different in practice. While both agree that the people should be happy—or at least hold the illusion of happiness—and that they must obey the orders of the state, they differ in their approaches to politics, in their thoughts on how to rise to power, and in their values on public interest. With that, Socrates would most likely disagree with most of the arguments suggested by Machiavelli on how to be the ideal “Prince”.

Both Machiavelli in The Prince and Socrates in Plato’s The Republic strive to define what the perfect ruler is like, and the actions necessary for such a ruler to take to lead his people to prosperity. The two authors agree that a ruler should focus on ruling, but they differ in their idea of a good ruler. Machiavelli’s prince must be willing to “enter into evil” when necessary, while Socrates’ philosopher-king seems, on the surface, to be unconditionally just. Machiavelli also posits that a prince should focus on maintaining a certain appearance, even if it is fictitious in some ways. Although both Machiavelli and Socrates agree that their ideal leader should be focused on reigning and not distract themselves with a multitude of other things, they disagree on the values that their leader should evince and on whether it is sufficient for a leader to appear to have or if he must truly possess these values.

History has proven time and time again that leaders are constantly being challenged by the very population they govern. The population challenging the ruling party has been a constant throughout political history. The relationship between a ruler and his subjects is a fragile one, and it is a relationship that has sparked constant debate for thousands of years. Niccolò Machiavelli’s The Prince and Plato’s Crito and Apology this relationship and discusses their views on proper governance. Machiavelli and Socrates propose two very different sorts of rulers. Machiavelli advocates for a strong feared ruler who takes pragmatic steps to ensure unity in the state. In both Crito and Apology, Plato portrays Socrates as a “social gadfly” whose purpose to challenge the power of the state. The views of Machiavelli and Socrates are opposing views, and indeed Socrates would be an opposing force in Machiavelli’s idea of how a “prince” should rule.

Machiavelli attempted to quell the political instability characteristic of his time by creating a political system that stressed tranquility. He believed in the power of the leader to make difficult choices to maintain their regime by any means necessary. Machiavelli entrusted leaders to make decisions that benefitted the masses and believed that strategic use of lies, cruelty and violence were necessary in order to preserve order. On the contrary, Socrates believed in a political system where people were able to challenge leadership through their personal beliefs and stressed the importance of humility. Socrates would argue that Machiavelli’s concept of a Prince is too self-interested and that this Prince would lead to a corrupt political system of which he would not support.