Plato V. Machiavelli

Is a just person the best choice for a ruler; many philosophers have laid out different ways in which they believe a society should be ran whether it be a single ruler such as a prince or multiple rulers like philosophy kings. Machiavelli intended for a society/principality to be ruled a strong ruler whether he be just or unjust, moral or immoral; whereas Plato believed for a society to work a just ruler such as the philosopher kings along with its other social counterparts was the perfect society. This paper intends to show how a just ruler was not something Machiavelli saw as pertinent to a society's survival whereas Plato deemed it to be at necessary for order and efficiency and for a city to work.

Machiavelli's book The Prince was a letter written, with the intentions of telling the Prince of Italy on how to run the state, or to keep better control of it. Machiavelli talks about hereditary principalities, and new principalities how they are acquired, and how to keep rule, or what is the best way to keep rule in these newly acquired states. Machiavelli tells the prince what he feels is the best way to establish his rule, and keep it and he does so by providing examples from ancient times; he provides the prince with not only the successful states and rulers but also the ones that have failed and points out why those princes/emperors, their rule, and their state met their demise. Machiavelli could not have felt that a just ruler was the best ruler for a state because through out his whole book Machiavelli when talking about the ways in seizing a state he says that violence is one way in seizing a state; furthermore, in holding on to a seized state he talks about devastating them, and conquering them as well none of a just ruler. In addition, one of the main points that Machiavelli pushes through out his book is the use of force and fear. It is noted that force is a great way for a Prince to become "strong, secure, and respected"; and he links this force with the devastation that he talks about in seizing and securing a state. Another strong point to give in this argument against Machiavelli wanting a just ruler is the fact that he writes about a Prince seizing a state with "evil means"; he writes that "cruelty can be used well" and gives examples of rulers who had done so previously, and also that if a ruler uses evil means in his acquisition of a state they must decide how much injury or evil they wish to inflict. Machiavelli feels as though in seizing a state cruel acts are a must at first to get the people under control, but eventually he feels the people will forget, and forgive and understand why the acts committed were done. The last point to note is that Machiavelli says that a Prince does not need to be moral or ethical but virtuous and wise; a virtuous and wise prince will be able to keep the population in control, keep the military controlled, and by being virtuous and wise he able to do good for the state. That is the main concern only for Machiavelli and point through out the book; is that for a good prince after seizing a state he must do whatever to sustain the state, and protect the state, even if that means the prince must rule by fear because Machiavelli says that sometimes a ruler is better feared than love because more will listen and obey and do for the state if the ruler is feared, than they would if the ruler was loved and admired. All these examples from the text of Machiavelli show that Machiavelli is telling Princes or people who are trying to conquer or acquire new principalities or lands that they should do so by any means necessary, even if that means inflicting violence on his subjects.

The only examples which Machiavelli gives which would support his notion for a just ruler are minimal; they include having the prince stay in the principality which he just conquered and learning the customs and traditions of those who already live there so that they feel comfortable with the new ruler. Furthermore, the one I thought was the most important was the when Machiavelli stated that a new Prince in a newly acquired principality should keep the old taxes and new laws and not create anything which would disturb or upset the public. However, these are only minimal standards to keep the populace calm and under rule and help protect the state along with the Prince these do not make the Prince just.

Plato however was different than Machiavelli; Plato did believe in a just ruler(s) for a society to work. Plato started out his piece by describing what he believed justice to be, and he felt that in order for justice to be achieve by any one place or person they or the city had to have almost a perfect soul; to create this Plato devised what he thought would be a perfect city. Plato laid out the cardinal virtues which included justice, and he also laid out what you could consider a higher level of order which included wisdom, moderation, and courage and he felt with both parts working together a perfect soul, city,