Throughout class one of the major themes has been what qualities make the best possible ruler. Two of my favorite philosophers, Plato and Machiavelli, although very different both attempt to give an answer of what makes a good ruler. Plato’s Philosopher King and Machiavelli’s Prince share their similarities and differences, but in the end Machiavelli paints a more realistic picture of a ruler which makes his prince more favorable. In order to understand why Machiavelli’s Prince may be more appealing
Justice is one of four cardinal Platonic virtues. These virtues are said to be good by nature, and so they must be ideals that all individuals strive to demonstrate in their lives. In The Republic, Plato (through Socrates) attempts to find the definition of Justice through dialogue with his colleagues. One of his colleagues Thrasymachus proclaims that: “Justice is in the interest of the stronger.” (338c) In other words, rulers make laws from which only they reap the benefits of. Fortunately, this dark view
actual interest of the rulers. Second, by claiming that all craftsmen only consider the welfare of the recipients of expertise instead of their own interest, Socrates asserts that a ruler, having an expertise of ruling, also only cares about the interest of the ruled, and thus morality is the advantage of the weaker. In this paper, I will show that Thrasymachus only gives an argument about descriptive morality, and Socrates, by using a completely different definition of a ruler, fails to challenge the
Niccolo Machiavelli’s “The Prince” attempts to explain the necessary tactics and required knowledge a ruler must attain in order to gain and maintain a successful reign. The novel serves as an abstract manual, addressing the definition of a good/bad ruler by placing emphasis on the required military organization, the character a ruler must posses, and the success that could be attained if a ruler should follow the guide. The scope in which the book is written is that of a scholarly observant. Machiavelli
Machiavelli offer important views on political philosophies of rulers. Plato writes of a perfect society where status as ruler is naturally selected through innate abilities. These abilities are used to sustain the society, better it, and preserve it. Machiavelli writes of a society where anyone can be a prince; which for our purposes is a synonym for ruler, if they follow his instructions. These instructions are to ensure a new ruler can take control of new lands and maintain order in them for the
Shakespeare, there is a constant theme of questioning what quantifies a good leader and what qualifies someone to lead. These questions, however, are more easily posed than answered because they change immensely depending upon the individual responding. Some follow the school of thought that a king should be selected based on divine inheritance while others focus more holistically on a king who possesses good qualities that would make them a worthy ruler. In Macbeth there are not many examples of decent
are made because of the environment. Each person believes leaders possess certain characteristics that make them "good" rulers. I believe leaders are made, they are taught what is wrong and right, and they are taught how to be a certain kind of leader in the context of their environment. I want to discuss what makes someone a "good" leader. Is a good leader efficient and adaptable or is a good leader born with predetermined qualities that dictate how they will rule over a kingdom or state? In Hsün
responding to the question, “what is justice?” as put forth by Socrates. An important implication of this response is that justice lies in following the rules and regulations made by the ruler and therefore, doing what is in the interest of the ruler. The problem with this understanding of justice is that for Socrates, justice is a virtue that applies universally everywhere, while for Thracymachus justice would change from city to city depending on the type of ruler. For instance, if gambling is
What mix of traits creates the perfect ruler? Some may say charisma, personability, or even good looks. Throughout history, a plethora of leaders with different views have been successful for many different kinds of societies. Depending on what the society needs, rulers change their ways as well as do what they can for the good of their people. In Plato’s The Republic, the character Socrates argues with his peers about what makes the perfect society, as well as the perfect leader. According to Plato
and his peers. At the beginning of The Republic, Plato asks the fundamental question of what is justice? Looking to define the ideal state of justice, Plato reasons that he must first define justice in theory before he can use justice practically. Platonic Justice is defined as being a harmony between the tripartite soul in which reasons guide the spirit and appetite. Justice is said to be good in itself and good in its practical ends. It is educating desires, implementing the human faculty of reason