For more information
Call 1-800-351-0222
Call 1-800-351-0222
MACHIAVELLI & THOMAS MORE.
Term Paper ID:28004
Get This Paper Free! or
Essay Subject:
Compares their views on human nature as presented in THE PRINCE & UTOPIA.... More...
5 Pages / 1125 Words
2 sources, 8 Citations,
MLA Format
$20.00
More Papers on This Topic
Paper Abstract:
Compares their views on human nature as presented in THE PRINCE & UTOPIA.
Paper Introduction:
This study will compare the views of Niccolo Machiavelli and Thomas More on human nature. More in Utopia and Machiavelli in The Prince present views which stand in stark contrast to one another, emphasizing More's generally more positive view and Machiavelli's decidedly more negative view.
Unlike the cynical Machiavelli, More believed human nature to be good, created by God, and susceptible to great improvement if social, political, and economic conditions were reformed so that human misery were eliminated and that fundamental human virtue were thereby liberated and nurtured. More believed in socialism insofar as it would eliminate private property, which he saw as the root of evil. He believed that when private property exists, and when money dominates all other considerations, then "it is hardly ever possible for a
Text of the Paper:
The entire text of the paper is shown below. However, the text is somewhat scrambled. We want to give you as much information as we possibly can about our papers and essays, but we cannot give them away for free. In the text below you will find that while disordered, many of the phrases are essentially intact. From this text you will be able to get a solid sense of the writing style, the concepts addressed, and the sources used in the research paper.
In fact, to act morally, for the leader, in the conventionalsense, is specifically counter-productive to Machiavelli, except when usedas a tactic to acquire or keep power. To More, whatwas wrong with both humanity and politics was correctable, specificallythrough the kinds of socialistic reforms he proposes in Utopia. Utopia. . Works CitedMachiavelli, Niccolo. Machiavelli is concerned only with the maintenance of power, ratherthan with moral behavior. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1989.----------------------- 7 To More, human beings living under such unjust conditions are not asvirtuous as they could be because virtue requires hospitable conditions.When most human beings in a society are miserable, frightened, hungry, andpoverty-stricken, and when a few are rich and powerful, virtue is almostimpossible. . If he "wishes to profess goodness at all times"he "must fall to ruin among so many who are not good." If he wishes tomaintain his power, he must "learn how not to be good, and to use it or notaccording to necessity (Machiavelli 127). More looked at the same humanity, the same political power ofthe princes, and yet he saw an entirely different reality. He believed that when privateproperty exists, and when money dominates all other considerations, then"it is hardly ever possible for a commonwealth to be governed justly orhappily." More believes that justice simply cannot exist when the "worstcitizens" own the "best things," or "where property is limited to a few."In such a situation, those who have so much are "always uneasy," fearingthey will have it taken, and those who have so little "are utterlywretched" (More 38). Neither do theshortcomings of human nature, as acknowledged by More, preclude theimplementation of his utopia. Unlike the cynical Machiavelli, More believed human nature to begood, created by God, and susceptible to great improvement if social,political, and economic conditions were reformed so that human misery wereeliminated and that fundamental human virtue were thereby liberated andnurtured. . The long-term effect of his ideas of pragmatic ruthlessness canhardly be said to be the furtherance of whatever goodness might exist inhuman beings. because that isthe only concern that awaits one who rules" (Machiavelli 121). He believes that theeffective leader should not be bad or evil or cruel or coercive for nopurpose. . Theproblem with More's ideal society is not that it is necessarily impossibleto achieve in any era, although some of its basic elements, such as"communal living" and the "moneyless economy" (More 11 ), would certainlybe difficult to bring about at any time in any society. . More believed in socialism insofar as it would eliminate privateproperty, which he saw as the root of evil. However, for the practice of the virtue headvocates, he must believe that human beings, while flawed, are capable ofvirtuous behavior if social conditions encourage such behavior. but war, . To More,human beings are capable of goodness, if not perfection, and certainly ofmuch more goodness than was afforded them by Machiavelli's pragmaticphilosophy. .. The people will be frightened intoobedience by the ruthlessness of the prince, and they will be more amenablewhen he rules more kindly. More believes that virtue "is livingaccording to nature; and God . This study will compare the views of Niccolo Machiavelli and ThomasMore on human nature. The heart of More's utopia with respect to virtue is the argumentthat virtue--that is, virtue as the goodness, rationality, generosity, andcompassion of humanity--is encouraged and nurtured under a just politicalsystem. Machiavelli, on the other hand, argues that the prince should behaveas ruthlessly as necessary to gain and maintain power in a world in whichMachiavelli believes human nature to be so selfishly ruthless and withoutvirtue. On the other hand, a society based on money and private propertycreates conditions of injustice, which discourage virtue among leaders andcitizens alike. Machiavelli believes that the princeought to behave effectively, rather than morally, in all situations, withfriends or enemies. The Prince. The prince "should consider all the injuries he must inflict, andinflict them all at once" (Machiavelli 75), rather than having to deal outhis brutality in bits and pieces. . Machiavellian ideas are at work in democraciesas well as in tyrannies, for Machiavelli does not simply advocate bruteforce as the only or primary tool of the leader, but instead argues forpersuasion--including the use of any necessary lies--as long as persuasionproves effective. .should have no other goal or thought . If "acting" conventionally virtuous proves effective incontrolling the people and winning their obedience, the Prince is urged byMachiavelli to do so. More in Utopia and Machiavelli in The Prince presentviews which stand in stark contrast to one another, emphasizing More'sgenerally more positive view and Machiavelli's decidedly more negativeview. Where there is no justice, people will believe thatthere is no reward for virtue, which will result in people behavingaccording to their lowest standards, rather than according to theirhighest. Among them virtue has its reward, yet everything is shared equally, andall men live in plenty" (More 38). One cannot disprove More's view of human nature unless one were tocreate his utopia and see the goodness such a utopia would produce: "So Ireflect on the wonderfully wise and sacred institutions of the Utopians. More takes the opposite view with respect to human nature. By the phrase "so many who are not good," Machiavelli expresses hisview of the basic lack of goodness in human nature. Machiavelli argues that the effective leader must trust no one--friend or foe, in private or public matters--for human nature, as he seesit, is self-centered and rooted in fear, greed, dishonesty, and the desirefor power. What makes it impossible to implement werethe prevailing political realities of the era in which he wrote. He argues thatthe leader should be no more ruthless than is necessary to achieve hisends, which are always based on the acquisition and then the maintenance ofpower. New York: St. The "good" leader is measured only by his capacity for doing what heneeds to do to control the chaotic forces which would otherwise be releasedin society by the exercise of human beings' selfish nature. Such asociety creates the evidence Machiavelli needs to support his view of humannature, but it does not prove that human nature is without a capacity forvirtue. The sameprinces addressed by Machiavelli ruled as More wrote, and More himselfnotes in the final lines of the work that his utopia is regrettably more awish than a possibility in his own time: "I freely confess that in theUtopian commonwealth there are many features that in our own societies Iwould like rather than expect to see" (More 111). . Unfortunately, ashistory shows, Machiavelli's pragmatic system, based on a view of humannature as hopelessly vile, has proven far more amenable to reality. WhereasMore bases his concept of virtue on a positive view of human nature,Machiavelli sees human and political relationships as rooted inselfishness, requiring the most pragmatic, amoral, or immoral behavior onthe part of the prince. "Virtue" to Machiavelli is whatever action is required by theleader in dealing with threats from within or without the state. However, because Machiavelli believes that humannature is selfish, he believes that on a pragmatic level the Prince will berequired to use coercion or war as a means to the end: "A prince . Leaders who "depend on themselves and are able to use force,will [very seldom] find themselves in danger" (Machiavelli 45). Although More's views reflect a generally positive view of humannature, he is too wise to believe that human beings are likely notperfectible in this world. . In such a society, as in Machiavelli's princedom, virtue isboth without its rewards as well as a guarantee for disaster. In "dealing with his subjects and friends" the princemust treat both the same. Martin's, 1964.More, Thomas. created us to that end" (More 69).
If this paper is not what you are looking for, you can search again:
or
We can write a Custom Essay just for you.
Browse Essays by Subject