Virtue of Aquinas and Machiavelli

Trying not to overstep the boundaries of the citizens to get kicked out of power or not doing enough that they replace you. With the power gained from leading it is expected that other princes will try to take power away so the only way to prevent this from happening is to make alliances and maintaining a strong military. Later on, in the novel Machiavelli goes on to focus on what qualities a prince should have and how virtu plays a role in making a proper prince. Although a short novel, it is Machiavelli’s most widely known work and is responsible for creating a negative view on rulers/politicians and also making it seem like anything you do, even immoral, is justifiable if the end goal is worth it. Machiavelli writes “He who neglects what is done for what ought to be done, sooner effects his ruin than his preservation” showing that the use of immoral means is justifiable when the end goal is survival and glory. This book follows the ideals of Italian humanism from the author being from Florence, the heart of the renaissance, dedicating the novel to Lorenzo de’ Medici, an example of a man who invested a lot in helping people learn about philosophy and such subjects to become better humanists.

When observing the different ethical theories one may believe that although their differences are unique there are similarities in them. One may state that a similarity between utilitarian and deontology is that they both require one to consider their duty something that should be done and considering the character of an individual is if it will be done. If an individual has morals and character he or she may consider it their duty to do what is morally correct.

Aquinas identifies the virtuous man as “the one who really lives out his ‘function’ and acts in accord with reason, but even desires in accord with reason.” Both the Stoics and Aquinas would agree that the virtuous man has the virtues; temperance, fortitude, courage, and justice which are all properly ordered with his reason. When reason is removed or blurred the virtuosity of the person is called into question. Virtue cannot be fulfilled without reason, and vice versa, however the one factor that can alter or affect reason, is passion. The Stoics characterized passion as “any emotions in disaccord with or exceed reason” and Aquinas defined passions as “any movement from the sense appetite.” Aquinas believes that if all passions belong to the sense appetite, then passions can be moderated and perfected by reason. These two varying definitions of passion show the rigidity of the Stoic view by portraying the virtuous man as the passionless man, which by default means the virtuous man lacks antecedent passions.

     Aquinas’ third way argument states that there has to be something that must exist, which is most likely God. He starts his argument by saying not everything must exist, because things are born and die every single day. By stating this we can jump to the conclusion that if everything need not exist then there would have been a time where there was nothing. But, he goes on, if there was a time when there was nothing, then nothing would exist even today, because something cannot come from nothing. However, our observations tell us that something does exist, therefore there is something that must exist, and Aquinas says that something is God.

This compare and contrast essay will focus on the views of leadership between Mirandolla and Machiavelli. Mirandolla believes that leadership should not be false and that it should follow the rule of reason. He believes that leaders should strive for the heavens and beyond. On the other hand, Machiavelli believed that leadership comes to those who are crafty and forceful. He believed that leaders do not need to be merciful, humane, faithful or religious; they only need to pretend to have all these qualities. Despite both of them being philosophers, they have drastically different views on leadership, partially because of their views on religion are different. Mirandolla was very religious, and Machiavelli was a pragmatist, which means that

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

To support Aquinas’ claim that money, honor, fame, power, goods of the body, or pleasure is not required for human happiness, one may cite they share ends for the sake of human beings. That is, their ends are meant only to fulfill human capacities

Has somebody ever muttered the words "It is best to be feared than loved "? In any context, this could look like remorseless; however, the deeper the meanings are reached once with a glance at Machiavelli's morals and arguments achieved. Inside this essay, I will discuss the deserves, shortfalls and contravene arguments of the philosopher political philosophy and system. Also, I will be able to check up on Machiavelli's personal history; furthermore to grasp abundant any what and the way drive this argument.

As opposed to just focusing on intention or the best outcomes, an ordinary person will try to act so that they are morally virtuous. Practical rationality takes into account all moral or immoral considerations and of these, certain considerations give the reasons for how they should act (Foot 2001). These considerations account for wellbeing of themselves and others, prudency and instrumental rationality among other things (Russel 2016, Lecture 17). All of these considerations will weight in as reasons for how they will act, because overall they ought to act in the most virtuous way. Those that possess moral virtues understand the weight of certain considerations and as such they can act accordingly to retain their virtuous will (Foot 2001). The function of the human will entails recognizing the considerations that incorporate human needs and understanding the weight of those considerations (Russel 2016, Lecture 17). If we want to retain the goodness of that will, we ought to act in a moral

In this paper, I will first briefly describe what Socrates and Machiavelli represent as historical figures and as

Plato and Machiavelli are both theorists that focus on the concept of well-being in regards to the state. However, although their main concentration is the same – the well-being of the state – they vastly differ when it comes to what their stand on morality is, focusing on separate virtues within their books, Republic and The Prince respectively. A virtue is defined as a conformity to a standard of right: morality” or a “particular moral excellence” (Virtue). Plato centres around virtues such as wisdom, courage, temperance and justice whereas, Machiavelli focuses on boldness, adaptation, prudence and foresight. In this paper I will focus on the differences and similarities between Plato and Machiavelli’s accounts of virtue, what virtues each finds valuable for political life and how they contribute to the health of the state. I will also touch on how the theorists’ accounts of virtue deviate from one another and what that tells us about the approaches each takes in regards to the political life.

When reading Niccolo Machiavelli's The Prince, one can't help but grasp Machiavelli's argument that morality and politics can not exist in the same forum. However, when examining Machiavelli's various concepts in depth, one can conclude that perhaps his suggested violence and evil is fueled by a moral end of sorts. First and foremost, one must have the understanding that this book is aimed solely at the Prince or Emperor with the express purpose of aiding him in maintaining power. Therefore, it is essential to grasp his concepts of fortune and virtue. These two contrary concepts reflect the manner in which a Prince should govern while minimizing all chance and uncertainty. This kind of governing demands violence to be taken, however

When reading Niccolo Machiavelli’s The Prince, one can’t help but grasp Machiavelli’s argument that morality and politics can not exist in the same forum. However, when examining Machiavelli’s various concepts in depth, one can conclude that perhaps his suggested violence and evil is fueled by a moral end of sorts. First and foremost, one must have the understanding that this book is aimed solely at the Prince or Emperor with the express purpose of aiding him in maintaining power. Therefore, it is essential to grasp his concepts of fortune and virtue. These two contrary concepts reflect the manner in which a Prince should govern while minimizing all chance and uncertainty. This kind of governing demands violence to be taken, however this

When in comparison of Aquinas’s ideas to that of Boetie and Machiavelli’s ideas, Aquinas seems to be the intermediary of the two. Boetie despises tyranny, Machiavelli treats tyranny as a natural regime, and in between Aquinas acknowledges tyranny in an unbiased way. Their different responses to tyranny may be due to their cultural and moral foundations that trained them. Machiavelli gives aid to the tyrants teaching them how to defend their power, Boetie discourages tyranny and encourages the people to fight for their natural rights, and in between

It is fundamentally important to preface the discussion hosted in this essay by addressing ourselves to the most mundane question-why consider Machiavelli in the context of philosophy, least of all, political philosophy? This question dominates any philosophical inquiries of the Machiavelli’s political ideologies. Put differently, do the contributions by Niccolò Machiavelli to the various salient discourses in the Western thought, most notably political theory, meet the requisite standard models of academic philosophy? Machiavelli essentially seems not to consider himself a philosopher. In fact, he overtly disapproved of any philosophical inquiries into his works. In addition, his credentials do not qualify him to be properly admitted within the realm of philosophy (NeDermAN, 2002).