Sample donated: Maxine Simpson
Last updated: April 23, 2019
Many individuals in historyhave expounded on perfect rulers and states and how to look after them. Maybe themost discussed and thought about are Machiavelli’s, The Prince and Plato’s, TheRepublic. Machiavelli inhabited a period when Italy was experiencing itspolitical demolition. The Prince, was composed to portray the routes by which apioneer may pick up and look after power. In Plato’s, The Republic, hedisentangles the meaning of equity.
Plato trusted that a ruler couldn’t beentirely quite recently unless one was in a general public that was likewisejust. His state and ruler was improved up to comprehend the importance ofequity. It was not expected to be honed like that of Machiavelli’s. Regardlessof the numerous distinctions found between Plato’s The Republic, andMachiavelli’s The Prince, everyone wants a ruler who is plotted to have thebest level of virtue. Nonetheless, their varying perspectives on what virtueinvolves has formed their convictions on the parts that a pioneer must hold.While Plato characterized virtue as the immaculate harmony between makingprogress toward a definitive truth, insight, bravery, and restraint,Machiavelli trusted virtue to be a person’s consistent adventure towards hisown particular glorification. The varying perspectives that Plato’s andMachiavelli’s hang on what characterizes virtue are the premise behind the distinctionin their convictions on what the moral obligations of a ruler to the nationalsare. Through this paper will compare and contrast Plato’s and Machiavelli’saccount of virtue, what are the virtues that each identifies as valuable forpolitical life, how do these virtues contribute to the heath of the state, inwhat ways do their accounts of virtue depart from one another, and what do theytell us about how each of them approaches political life.
In Plato’s, The Republic, he says that a vital part ofvirtue is the human soul, in the book he states, “weagree that justice is virtue of soul, and injustice, vice” (The Republic, 353e).He argues that there are three distinct components of the soul and callsthem reason, appetite, and spirit. Appetite is the part of the soul that ishuman like, lusting for bodily pleasures and itches, reason that which isconcerned with calculation and rational thought, and spirit the part associatedwith emotions. After having established the various parts of the soul, Platothen makes the claim that virtue lies in keeping the components of the soul inthe correct relations. Reason should guide the soul, making decisions anddetermining what is wrong and right, spirit should follow reason and providemotivation, and appetite should obey.
Virtue on this account seems to benothing but a magic proportion or some sort of balance of the soul, havingnothing to do knowledge or decision making. For Plato, a person’s virtueconsists in his knowledge of the good. It’s not that a person is knowledgeableabout some things or at sometimes and is therefore virtuous in some respectsand un-virtuous in others (John Alison Pg.1-2). Someone possessing knowledge of the good isable to determine the good in all decisions, at all times, and will thus bevirtuous unconditionally. In Plato, he defines his ideal leader to be aphilosopher king.
A philosopher king has four unique virtues which are wisdom,courage, self-control, and justice. In the book he states, “Then,as it seems, with respect to a city’s virtue, this power that consists in eachman’s minding his own business in the city is a rival to wisdom, moderation,and courage” (433d). In Machiavelli’s, The Prince, he characterizesvirtues as qualities that are commended by others, for example, liberality,sympathy, and devotion. He contends that a prince ought to dependably attemptto seem upright, however that acting temperately for virtue’s purpose can demonstratehindering to the realm (Elvin Jesus). A prince ought not really stay away fromindecencies, for example, pitilessness or untrustworthiness if utilizing themwill profit the state. Mercilessness and different indecencies ought not besought after for their own particular purpose, similarly as virtue ought not besought after for its own purpose: virtues and indecencies ought to be imaginedas unfortunate chore. Each move the prince influences must to be considered inlight of its effect on the state, not similar to its trademark great regard(Jesus).
Virtue is important to Machiavelli as he believes it will ultimatelyhelp a leader gain power. In the Prince he states, “unlesshe has an extremely high level of ability and virtù he can’t be expected toknow how to command, having always lived as an ordinary citizen” (The Prince, Pg.13).In Plato’s, The Republic, A philosopher’sinformation is required for teaching the “political virtues” in thecharacter of the citizens of the just city, however the teaching of suchvirtues is not a definitive end of the city or its instruction. Securing thepolitical virtues is required for managing the standard demands of life,connecting with others, and for fostering the control of desires and emotionsnecessary for undertaking rigorous scholarly request (Stanford University).
Bethat as it may, as per the considerable Neoplatonist philosopher, Plotinus(204-270AD), the political virtues must be abandoned 13 when one attains themore prominent, more celestial virtues associated with the perception of simplyclear objects. Machiavelli is about outcomes. Hetrusts that you characterize something in legislative issues not by its innategreatness, but rather by its result. For political virtue is separate fromsingular flawlessness. A pioneer might be straightforward, unselfish and moral,however in the event that he begins a war that later demonstrated superfluousand executed many individuals, he needs virtue — regardless of being on anindividual level extremely thoughtful. On the other hand, a pioneer might beskeptical, narrow minded and too much aggressive, yet in the event that hekeeps his compatriots far from peril he can in any case be said to have virtue— notwithstanding being specifically unappealing. Amiability has nothing to dowith temperance, it turns out.
For legislative issues — and particularlygeopolitics — is worried, as indicated by Machiavelli, with thinking about theworld instead of thinking about paradise. Without a doubt, definitely in lightof the fact that Machiavelli was worried about men and not with God, he was ahumanist. Plato believes that the four keyvirtues, wisdom, courage, self-control, and justice, are vital to obtaininghealthy state. In his eyes, to obtain a just society you need to have a strongleader, which he has constructed as, philosopher kings. He believes thatphilosopher kings are the ideal rulers of society because, they have each ofthe four key virtues, as a result of this, they are able to rule and keep ahealthy state.
Machiavelli shared many Plato’sview. He influenced it to clear that a ruler needed to recognize what to do andhave the capacity to do what was required as it had been specified in ThePrince. Plato’s watchmen, much the same as Machiavelli’s were the class fit fordecision and overseeing in the most ideal way. This was on the grounds thatthey knew how to make penances for the benefit of the polis and they madeextreme choices. Much the same as Plato, Machiavelli likewise bolstered anedified and a solid ruler.
Moreover, both Plato and Machiavelli shared the viewthat it was fundamental for a ruler to have finish control. Aside from Platowho held the view that the logic was conceivable because of the way that nobodywas equipped for decision with the exception of the individuals who did, theyshould have the power, Machiavelli, then again, gathered that a ruler acted ininterests of individuals and his own particular perspectives. Keeping in mindthe end goal to make great human advancement, both Plato and Machiavelliconcurred that virtue was required and without it every progress be it inEgypt, Rome, Carthage or Athens would come apart if its rulers did not takeafter the land’s law and were unjustifiable. Taking everything into account, anexamination amongst Plato’s and Machiavelli’s perspectives uncovers thatMachiavelli was known to have ruled the general public in a strict agreementwith his books while Plato was of the conclusion that the administration oughtto meddle into individuals’ issues, which concerning me is completely wrong andundemocratic. What’s more, Plato’s view supported for tyranny and outrightpower. It isn’t just vile however undemocratic too. From my perspective, greatpioneers ought to along these lines maintain Machiavelli’s thoughts since headvocates for rulers who realize what to do and can do what is required.
Thenagain, Plato’s view ought to never be neglected in totality. All thingsconsidered, he additionally had similar perspectives like Machiavelli forexample; he likewise held an indistinguishable view from Machiavelli thatvirtues were a prerequisite for a making of a decent human progress. BothMachiavelli and Plato were additionally in concurrence with the way that ifthere were no virtue, any human progress in all aspects of the world would notexist if their rulers didn’t take after the rules that everyone must follow. Inaddition, Machiavelli’s thoughts were somehow perfect with the perspectivesheld by Plato and accordingly, great pioneers or rulers ought to have the greatvirtues keeping in mind the end goal to have the capacity to lead their nativespositively.