Machiavelli Vs Socrates

Socrates and Machiavelli- Opposite Opinions on Sustaining Political Power Socrates would have been skeptical of Machiavelli’s assertions on how a prince should rule his kingdom. Socrates preferred to question people to understand what should the right thing and philosophy, rather than just studying the actions of past people. From his studying of human behavior, Machiavelli concludes that prince should make decisions with his self- interests in mind, rather than working within what morality and law. As a philosopher who spent his time talking to people, Socrates would disagree with Machiavelli because his advice would lead the prince astray. A prince who follows Machiavelli’s advice is one who is only focused on his reign and longevity of

Socrates would strongly disagree with this notion, as he argued for decisions made based on principles and reasons, rather than emotions. A prince who rules with the intentions to instill fear will not last, because of gadflies like Socrates. Members of society like question actions of the prince, even with the threat of punishment as severe as death. Socrates did not see himself as rebel to new Oligopoly; rather, he was the gadfly who questioned the youth. In a system where the Prince works to be feared, Socrates would argue that gadflies like him would always exist. Gadflies and philosophers do not fear death, as questioning the status quo is vital. Along with the pursuit of knowledge, Socrates would highlight that philosophers do not fear death. At his trial, he proclaims that “I would not yield even to one man against the just because of a fear of death, even if I were to perish by refusing to yield” (Plato). Thus, fear of the Prince- and possibly death- is not an incentive to change behavior and adhere to all of the Prince’s regulations. In his discussion with Crito, while awaiting his execution, Socrates does not consider escaping for he abides by what is just. His concern is not with his own well being, but for the well being of society. As a gadfly and a philosopher, he is willing to be punished in

Machiavelli relies on his knowledge of history to conclude that Princes who abide by a standard moral code rarely succeed. He stands by his argument that the end justifies the means for the prince. For the prince, the means is whatever is in his best interests, not necessarily the interests of his people. Sometimes, a Prince must create his new standard of morality, and sometimes change it, to meet his new means and maintain power. He believed that morality is a fluid concept, changing as the interests and the challenges of the Prince evolve. Machiavelli argues that “For injuries ought to be done all at one time, so that, being tasted less, they offend less; benefits ought to be given little by little, so that the flavor of them may last longer” (Machiavelli). Not only can the Prince use injury as a vehicle to control his people, but also he should commit them with great force at one time. Machiavelli does not expand on the boundaries the Prince has when committing injuries, for he believed that the boundaries could be shifted, depending on the Prince’s