Utopia And The Prince Analysis

Thomas More’s Utopia and The Prince by Machiavelli are clearly different texts, especially in their approach towards political and governmental reform. This distinction is made apparent through More’s idealism versus Machiavelli’s pragmatism. More’s political reform suggests a utopian, ideal, and almost perfect society governed by an equally good governmental system which is based on high moral standards and human happiness. On the other hand, Machiavelli suggests a government where those in power take advantage of the circumstances, manipulate society, and take advantage of their power in order to ensure security, peace, and well-being. Although Machiavelli’s approach does not meet the Utopian moral standards and seems to be unethical, I think

But since it is impossible to have and exercise them all, because the conditions of human life simply do not allow it, a prince must be shrewd enough to avoid the public disgrace of those vices that would lose him his state” (p 43). Here, Machiavelli again portrays his view of human nature. He emphasizes that since it is impossible, due to human limitations, for one to have all the qualities which we think a ruler should have, one should simply focus on avoiding the bad qualities which will cause him to lose the support of the people. Both of these passages show that Machiavelli believes that most men are not good, and that even the best of man cannot have all the positive qualities which a good ruler should have. Thus, instead of spending time and energy on a quest to change human nature (a quest which does not have guaranteed success), Machiavelli suggest a more simple, direct, and pragmatic solution: A prince should not try to be good, instead he should be cruel when necessary in order to maintain authority, control and peace. Moreover, a prince should not focus on having all the good qualities, but

More represents the idealistic point of view, while Machiavelli represents a pragmatic point of view. Both are reasonable in some aspects; However, since the pragmatic approach is based on a more realistic method which is based on the principles of this world, I find it more reasonable. Throughout his text, Machiavelli argues for methods which will be effective and produce a good result in the end, even if they are considered controversial and unpleasant. Examples of this are seen when Machiavelli speaks of acting according to the circumstances, imitating others, and knowing when to use or refrain from certain virtues. In contrast, More, through the character of Raphael, advocates more drastic methods for political reform, such as changing the political system, sticking to an absolute moral code, and carrying forth morally good ideas which exist only in theory. Although More’s idealistic views represent a nobel cause of eradicating corruption and ensuring the peace and prosperity of the people, Machiavelli’s straight-forward and pragmatic approach seems more realistic and reasonable, given the conditions of the world we live in. Both writers aim to reach a better society of peace, unity, and prosperity; however, a pragmatic approach seems to be a more reasonable way to reach that