Similarities Between Machiavelli And Aristotle

Furthermore, princes themselves are privy and subject to primordial inclinations which effectively gauge their political agenda. Having already established the Machiavellian virtue, its analysis within the work can be commenced in the understanding of the apolitical nature of the people. In civil principalities, since order is vested in the people, the Prince must cater to their needs despite whether or not one becomes prince through them or the great (40) since “men willingly change their lords in the belief that they will fare better” (8). When Machiavelli speaks of the necessity of the Prince keeping the people friendly, a social contract is implied. Yet, it is in terms of what would be beneficial to both parties but is dictated by the Prince

To reiterate, the differences are as follows: where Aristotle sees politics being exercised to achieve the end of the good life, Machiavelli sees politics as a means to achieving glory; and where Aristotle sees human nature as innately virtuous through the disposition of the soul, Machiavelli sees human nature as intrinsically selfish and self-interested. Their similarities are hidden under the veil of the paradigms of each work. The first similarity lies in the necessity of opposing groups being content with their political leaders. For Aristotle, so long as the leaders aim towards the good life, the others ought to and will be content with their rule. For Machiavelli, the Prince relies on his people being content with him as they have the power to overthrow him when they feel as though he no longer protects them (39). Both Aristotle and Machiavelli retain the principle of the sustainability of the activities of those in positions of potential opposition to their rule. The second similarity lies between Machiavelli’s praise of the six founders and Catholic Church’s reliance on divinity and laws, and Aristotle’s good life. In both these examples, some greater principle beyond the effective rule of either of those in political office is necessitated for effective governance. In both works, this demonstrates that people are, by nature, followers and will follow especially when under the influence that they are living in some association, guaranteeing under greater purpose. Finally, Machiavellian virtue bears resemblance to Aristotelian justice in that the Prince will inevitably retain the greatest merit to rule as he is the one who most effectively consolidated power. In other words, the individual who comes out as prince will be the most capable to govern in Machiavellian terms of being most abled to achieve