The Governing Techniques Promoted By Socrates And Machiavelli

Socrates was a Greek philosopher who stood for knowledge and virtue. He believed that in order for people to live their best lives, it is necessary for them to do what is right. “It is wicked and shameful to do wrong, to disobey ones superior, be he god or man (Cooper, 29b).” Socrates represents self-knowledge which is evident through his quest for finding someone who was wiser than he was. After his run ins with the likes of the local politicians, craftsmen and poets, Socrates comes to the realization that although these individuals had mastered their craft and were knowledgeable in their field of work, they were clueless in many other important aspects of life. Through this awareness, he accepts the fact that

Cruel actions by the prince should be done at once, and quickly.  Then the prince should slowly reward his people with benefits so that the cruel actions may be forgotten.  "For injuries ought to be done all at one time, so that, being tasted less, they offend less; benefits ought to be given little by little, so that the flavour of them last longer (Machiavelli 370)." Cruelty, therefore, will not seem like it is committed everyday and people will soon forget if they are reassured with benefits.

A prince is respected as well when he is a true friend and a true enemy, meaning that he sides with another prince against another with no reservation. A prince should show that he that he is a lover of talent and give recognition to men who have ability. He should encourage his subjects to be free in trade and reward them because they are benefiting his city or state by aggrandizing it.

A prince has plenty to worry about during times of war and everyone is out to get you so you must be greedy and heinous in times of war. The prince declares that the nation state comes first before individuals.

As the Prince is described as demanding his character proves that he understands the level of power and control he has. The prince also understands how much respect he expects from his subjects.

Both men mention that the leaders must have good reasons for what they are doing. Because the good reasons, ruler can dominate people easily. For example, if the prince had used punishment to people without any reasons,

We all have thought of what it would be like to be royalty, or the head of a nation. We simply tell ourselves that power will never change who we are, that it will not pervert us. Nonetheless, History has showed us that power is cancerous, it blinds us, victimizes us, and it corrupts us. In Frederick Douglass’ “Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, An American Slave” he states that immoral power eventually taints the most tender heart and turns it into stone. There is no way we can truly avoid irresponsible power and its effects, but we can learn to distinguish it.

Morality is likely the most debated topic of all time, especially in regards to our moral responsibility for each other. Throughout history many writers and philosophers have taken different angles the concept of morality and have applied it in many ways. This includes: Niccolò Machiavelli with The Prince (we will be looking at The Qualities of the Prince) and Plato with The Republic (we will be looking at the section The Allegory of the Cave. The Prince (1513) essentially lays out a how-to guide of how to obtain power and how to keep it; The Qualities of the Prince contains a list of qualities that one should appear to have while in power; this work will be used to represent the case against moral responsibility for others. The Republic

Socrates believed that to have a constant obligation as an individual to act ethically, and then pick and choose in which situations to act as such is morally reprehensible. He argued that true morality means that one does not act one way in a certain context and another way in another situation. Socrates asked “Do we say that there is no way that one must ever willingly commit injustice, or does it depend upon circumstance? Is it true, as we have often agreed before, that there is no sense in which an act of injustice is good or honorable?” (88). Although Socrates does not assert his opinion in anything but a question, it is clear that he believes that it would not make sense to know that one should live morally, and then choose in which circumstances to abide by that knowledge.

Niccolo di Bernardo dei Machiavelli was actually a Republican that seems to me after reading “The Prince”, wrote with both a liberal and conservative feel. He seemed to examine the methods by which a state could exert their power in which the ends would justify the means in their process of preserving law and order. By giving examples, Machiavelli describes how the main purpose of being a prince is wielding ones pure power for revenge, glory and survival, and he justifies the use of immorality to achieve that purpose. “He who neglects what is done for what ought to be done, sooner effects his ruin than his preservation” therefore he claims “the end justifies the means” (Machiavelli).

A prince must learn not to be limited to morality when unavoidable; a leader has to be able to use lies, force and deception if required in the world. Whether it is better to be feared or loved clearly addresses the reason for this.

What are some of the qualities and strategies Machiavelli recommends to political leaders in the excerpts you read? How does this represent a break with the past?

In The Prince, there is an analogy that talks about the fox and the lion. It says, “A prince, therefore, being compelled knowingly to adopt the beast, ought to choose the fox and the lion; because the lion cannot defend himself against snares and the fox cannot defend himself against wolves. Therefore, it is necessary to be a fox to discover the snares and a lion to terrify the wolves.” (Page 84-85) The fox is a symbol of the integrity of a ruler. A ruler who is honest, righteous, and faithful can be strong, but will have a downfall. They won’t be able to hold their status once their reasoning is not helpful. The downfall of the fox is the wolves. The lion is a symbol for a ruler using force, but this method will also have downfalls. The downfalls of the lion are the snares and traps. This analogy puts into play the idea that integrity and force oppose each other. One will always be the downfall of the other. In order for a prince to keep power, he must use both integrity and force.

The prince’s main goal is to keep order rather than to keep people happy. The prince needs to be practical and lead by truth, not virtue. The prince must rule in the way he knows men actually live, not how they wish to live.

However, that said, some of his ideas continue to attract philosophical engagements even by the so-called first rank philosophers. This qualifies the incorporation of some of his ideologies into any comprehensive philosophical survey. This paper therefore zeros in on his political ideals that have culminated into what is known as Machiavelli’s political philosophy of ‘Machiavellism’ (Meinecke, 1965). The paper seeks to explore his political ideologies in general. Further, the paper seeks to establish based on any real evidence whether Machiavelli is indeed a ‘break’ in the political philosophy or otherwise. In keeping with the latter