Socrates Vs Niccolo Machiavelli Essay

Socrates believed his integrity was more important to him. He was not going to give up his beliefs to please others. Socrates defends himself, saying the most important thing is “not to avoid death, but to avoid unrighteousness” (168). He told the jury if “[they] think by killing men” they can “prevent someone” (182) from thinking for themselves, they are wrong. Socrates spoke his mind, knowing that what he said in that moment could affect whether he was sentenced to death or not.

In Plato’s Apology and Crito, Socrates laid out a form of social contract theory that set the stage for many political philosophers to build upon. Having been sentenced to his death and accused of conspiring against the Laws of Athens, Plato provided insight into his teacher’s views of virtue and justice. For Socrates, virtue is the search for wisdom. It is a moral philosophy that a constant examination of life and pursuit of wisdom will lead to a virtuous life. The moral underpinning in this thinking is that man is inherently good and that evil exists only when people fail to seek out a virtuous life. In his Apology, Socrates challenged his accusers in their efforts to obtain riches “but care not nor take any thought for wisdom and truth, and for your soul, how it maybe made most perfect?” (Apology, 31). Throughout the centuries as political theory evolved, moral philosophies often adapted to the political environment around them. Some of them, such as Machiavelli’s writings in The Prince, leaned toward a more pragmatic view and monarchial governing system rather than Socrates’ notion of an accessible and democratic government. In Machiavelli’s The Prince, Machiavelli composes a guidebook for Lorenzo de Medici, the ruler of Florence in 1492, explaining how a person can successfully attain and maintain power. It is doubtful that Socrates would have easily accepted these philosophical underpinnings of Machiavelli’s concept of a Prince due to his completely opposite viewpoints

Despite being taken to court by the Athenians for allegedly corrupting the youth, Socrates continued his line of questioning at his trial. Socrates stated that he saw himself as the only one seeking to uncover the truth about the government and thus the only voice for reform for Athens. His argument continued, later comparing himself and his truth-seeking campaign to a fly on a horse “rousing, persuading, reproving every one of you” (Plato 57). Socrates was so devoted to the idea of truth in government, he refused to renounce his beliefs while facing the death and was willing to argue for them while on trial.

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.

Socrates would view Machiavelli’s concept of a prince as ignorant and built upon falsehoods as seen through Machiavelli’s explanations of holding new principalities. From the very start of “The Prince” Machiavelli explains that hereditary principalities are always easier to rule, because of the fact that “it is sufficient only for the prince to maintain the customs of those who ruled before him” (Machiavelli, Ch. 2). In contrast Socrates in the “Apology” passionately fights against the status quo. He likens himself to that as a gadfly of the Athenian state stinging the large horse “great and noble steed who is tardy in his motions owing to his very size, and requires to be stirred into life” (Apology, 30e). Socrates finds that a leader who grows content and maintains customs as those before him is foolish as he does not think for himself. A truly enlightened prince would question and challenge everything that comes his way. An enlightened prince would

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.

For example, one thing Machiavelli mentions is that it is necessary for a Prince to appear “merciful, faithful, humane, trustworthy, and religious,” to his subjects. However, Machiavelli believes that actually having those qualities is irrelevant, as long as it looks like he is to his people. Socrates would not approve of this sort of deception of the population. When Socrates discusses wisdom and his quest for knowledge, he talks about how when he talked to both the poets and the craftsmen, they thought themselves knowledgeable in many aspects that they were not, which led him to conclude that true wisdom is knowing the limitations of knowledge. This common theme for Socrates, the acknowledgement of one’s shortcomings, is diametrically opposed to Machiavelli’s version of a Prince, who appears virtuous regardless of how accurate that is. Because of this, Socrates would not agree with Machiavelli on what makes a good Prince.

While Socrates and Machiavelli lived over 1900 years apart, the dilemmas their societies faced draw many parallels. In Machiavelli’s “The Prince”, he demonstrates a wide-ranging set of rules and principles to be followed by a leader to ensure the steady maintenance of authority and stability in a state or principality. Not only would Socrates be opposed to many of the espoused views in “The Prince” on what creates a successful ruler, thereby society, but had he lived in Machiavelli’s “ideal” state, he would openly question and rebel against the cogs that maintain its stability, possibly even advocating its upheaval. Socrates would most ardently disagree with Machiavelli’s depiction of the supremacy of the prince and state over its

However, Socrates denies this by claiming how his questioning serves the purpose of trying to find more wisdom and figuring out who in his society bears more wisdom than him (Apology,44b). In addition, he assures the court that he will speak in an honest manner to portray his truthfulness and sincerity to the courts and the rest of the state. During his trial, Socrates claims, “When I leave this court I shall go away condemned by you to death, but they will go away convicted by Truth herself of depravity and injustice” (Apology, 68b).His portrayal of loyalty and honesty reveal his thoughts on how political leaders should compose themselves, behaving in a

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.

The debate on how people should rule has been going on since the dawn of time. Many agree and many disagree but they all agree that we should have a ruling force of some kind but what and how much has been very controversial. Niccolo Machiavelli and Socrates were two very important and revolutionary political philosophers for their time. Machiavelli’s “The Prince and the Discourses” outlines Machiavelli’s ideal prince and what a prince should do in power. Plato writes about the trial and death of Socrates and what he says about how people are supposed to act as well as how society should be changed. Socrates if he read Machiavelli’s concept of an

From Machiavelli’s experience, came, “The Prince,” a guidebook about the importance of self-preservation when leading a principality that was gifted to then- governor of Florence Lorenzo de’Medici. The primary ideas shared, rely on committing acts of evil if they are justified with reasoning. From Socrates’ lifetime came an

Socrates’ ideal Prince is much different than that of Machiavelli. Socrates found great power in his analysis of Athens, rather than direct involvement. Through questioning, reason, and critical analysis he attempts to instill wisdom, truth and virtue in Athens, specifically in the youth. He was charged with corrupting the youth because his idea of how life should be lived was much different than that of the states. Socrates corrupted the youth of Athens because he degenerated or undeveloped them from becoming strong political, economic, and military leaders. The people of Athens, in particular the wealthy and powerful, wanted their children to be educated in ideals that Machiavelli would support. It was the job for these privileged youth to learn how to be strong leaders so the city could run smoothly in the future and Socrates was undermining this structure. If the youth Socrates was teaching were treated as a counterpart to Machiavelli’s Prince, a difference in ideals and teachings can be found. Machiavelli teaches his Prince how to maintain power at all costs, while Socrates teaches his students to put aside the concept of materialistic power such as wealth and

Throughout the trial, Socrates uses very colloquial diction, frequently verbally attacking the jury for enforcing such unenlightened laws. For example, Socrates likens the jury to “the comedy of Aristophanes” citing their absolute “slander” against him (Apology 19b). He later claims that his “whole care is to commit no unjust or impious deed,” explaining how he has been falsely accused of a truly absurd crime (Apology 32d). Socrates practices what he preaches during the trial, showing how free speech and due process should coexist. While he shows a decent amount of disrespect for the jury, ultimately, he accepts the punishment given: time in jail and a death sentence. In essence, he respects the rule of law, saying that “the law must be obeyed” during the trial (Apology 19a). In Crito, a dialogue between Plato and Socrates following the trial and sentencing, Socrates says that attempting to escape prison would be unethical and unbeneficial to society, explaining that “it would be out of tune” (Crito 43b). Later, I will argue that a lot of the themes that Socrates espouses are consistent with 21st century western republics.

He believed that the sovereign is primarily judged based on his success and not on the process he took to get there or the characteristics he displays. Socrates on the other hand would question the nobles until they felt inferior and encourage the government to become more virtuous, a suggestion that Machiavelli says his Prince would shut down: “it is necessary that he should be prudent enough to avoid the scandal of those vices which would lose him the state, and guard himself if able to, he can indulge them with less scruple” (Machiavelli 57). Machiavelli believes that in some cases it is better to harbor bad characteristics if it means protecting the state, adding to his point that the ends justify the means. Socrates was a firm believer that the pursuit of truth and perfecting the soul outweighed the privileges of being the wealthy and honorable leader that Machiavelli describes. Socrates believed that extra riches would not bring extra happiness and the only real knowledge is that we know nothing. No body or ruler is truly wise or “wealthy” of knowledge until they admit that they really know nothing, start to ask questions and get educated on matters that they are unfamiliar with. Only then will the aristocrats and rulers truly be able to be successful in leading a democratic society.