Comparison Between Plato and Machiavelli

Sunpreet Mahil

Kristina Miko

English 3A

24 July 2017

   Comparison Between Plato and Machiavelli

    Machiavelli and Plato are two important figures within the political society. Though their views have their similarities and differences, both philosophers have brought ideas that our society is based upon today. Plato believed in rulers that ruled the State within moral virtue, while Machiavelli believed that virtue was best for the State.

During Plato’s time period, man served the state and at that time, there was no boundary between a private and a public life. There was no such thing as an "invasion of privacy," because one probably felt that he had no reason to keep his private life separate from his public life, which also made it easier to live by. However, during Machiavelli’s time period, the purpose of the State was to serve the people. Machiavelli believed that the sole purpose of appointing a ruler was to have a figurehead declare war and protect the State. Therefore, the ruler has every right to do what it takes within, or above and beyond, his power to ensure that the State is protected, no matter how much injustice might take place. When it comes to the matter of protecting the people, critical decisions can be made.

In Plato’s “The Republic,” he argues against that of a ruler who rules with an iron fist and brings upon injustice. A ruler should do everything in his power to secure the concept of justice. According to Plato, a ruler should not be hungry for war and power and within his power, should avoid such a possibility by any means possible. War is seen as an act of evil that will bring upon nothing but destruction and havoc upon those involved. For “the creation of evil is not an accomplishment of justice, but a failure of justice,” because such an extreme measure produces more loss than benefit. For example, we can see from our history how war has brought upon nothing but chaos. If leaders were level-headed and were willing to cooperate with one another, so many lives would have not been lost. Though a leader may be just, it is not wrong to take precaution and keep an army on stand in case one needed to take drastic measures.

In “The Prince,” Machiavelli states that “a Prince, therefore should have no care or thought but for war, and the regulations and training it requires, and should apply himself exclusively to this as his peculiar province; for war is the sole art looked for in one who rules” (page 70). Though his people might develop a hatred for his decisions, a Prince must do what he feels is right within his power. The people might not understand his decision making but such drastic decisions must be made in order to preserve the State. Machiavelli believes that the creation of the State is to solely produce war and that the main responsibility as that of a ruler is to declare war. Machiavelli believes rulers should not shrink away from making unjust decisions because each act is justified in the means of preserving the State. In this sense, “virtue” is not viewed as a concept of moral character but as a skill.

    According to Plato, the free will of a ruler is always connected to a bigger purpose. So technically, there is no such thing as “free will.” The concept of “every man lives for himself” does not apply to this concept because once one makes a decision, the outcome of that decision will forever go down in history and affect of what will come in the future.

Machiavelli, on the other hand, views “free will” in an entirely different light. Machiavelli describes “free will” in a way Prince comes into power, through fortune and prowess.The Prince scrutinizes the successes and failures of a Prince that is a result of his decisions made entirely upon free