Machiavelli And Plato Essays - Italian Politicians, Machiavellianism

Machiavelli And Plato Niccolio Machiavelli (Born May 3rd, 1469 1527 Florence, Italy.) His writings have been the source of dispute amongst scholars due to the ambiguity of his analogy of the Nature of Politics and the implication of morality. The Prince, has been criticised due to its seemingly amoral political suggestiveness, however after further scrutiny of other works such as The Discourses, one can argue that it was Machiavellis intention to infact imply a positive political morality. Therefore the question needs to be posed. Is Machiavelli a political amoralist? To successfully answer this it is essential to analyse his version of political structure to establish a possible bias. It would also be beneficial to discuss and compare another philosophers account to the nature of politics, and in this instance I have chosen the works of Plato in particular The Republic, establishing a comparison to define whom has the more convincing argument and why? Machiavelli lived amidst a deteriorating, corrupt, totalitarian, 16th Century political infrastructure when The Prince was composed. Its original intention was simply to influence Lorenzo The Magnificent son of Piero Di Medici in the hope for possible appointment within public office. The Prince is therefore merely suggestions on possible theories in terms of a governing policy.He does not infer that this account is the be all and end all of successful rule and acknowledges himself as a humble man who has taken the time to study the deeds of great men to form an ideology that can be taken by the reader, in this case Lorenzo Medici as he interprets it.He does not claim to have the answer to politics just a different perspective by way of analyses of the past and present. I have been unable to find among my possessions anything, which I hold so dear or esteem so highly as that knowledge of the deeds of great men, which I have acquired through a long experience of modern events and a co nstant study of the past. (Social and Political Philosophy. Somerville and Santoni p.101) It is from this initial examination of politics from a purely scientific and rational perspective that Machiavelli has been named the founder of analysing politics as a science. However his reputation has been unfairly appointed due to a misinterpretation of his work. If read in context The Prince is a dissection of reasoning in relation to the success or demise within a governing body (central power) and suggests potential strategies to insure a successful unified central power. It is essential prior to judgement on whether Machiavelli is a political amoralist or not to take into account The Discourses and the essence of their meaning. The Prince alone I grant can be mistaken for a how-to-be-a tyrant handbook with its absolute theories and some what lack of civility, where the end justifies the means. But its intention is assuming the political leader is already of moral standing and possess s uch qualities of integrity and virtue to be expected of one in the position of leadership. Everybody sees what you appear to be,few feel what you are,and those few will not dare to oppose themselves to the many,who have the majesty of the state to defend them;and in the actions of men,and especially of princes,from which there is no appeal, the end justifies the means Thus it is well to seem merciful,faithful humane,sincere,religious and also to be so. Effectively what seems as ruling with an iron fist is best expressed in terms of need. The 16th Century political unrest Machiavelli is influenced by would best be unified by such absolute power due to its degradation and lack of structure. So therefore it would not be seen as immoral with respect to its time. And looking at it from a wider more advanced perspective although the technique may appear rigid if it creates the desired unification of Italy and a situation where the people have stability and social, political and economical order, it is then just the process that has been judged as immoral but not the outcome. In the introduction of The Discourses writes, Although the envious nature of men, so prompt to blame and so slow to praise, makes the discovery and introduction