To grasp the two philosophers' concepts, it is necessary to first understand the meaning of virtue. One of the definitions of virtue is a skill. From a political standpoint, prowess can be defined as a man's ability to achieve his or her political objectives. The second interpretation is that virtue is a component of a good life in and of itself. When trying to understand from a philosophical standpoint, the definition is most important. Third, virtue is something's usefulness in the form of utility. Finally, morality is described as physical strength and willingness to achieve something, which can be actual power or merely potential. Machiavelli pairs the concept of virtue with fortune. According to him, it is the ability of a ruler to do whatever it takes so as to achieve success in his reign. In chapter VI, Machiavelli upholds high those leaders who rose to power without the help of fortune but rather their intellect. He, however, points out that the wealth may present an opportunity to use one’s “power of mind.” He believes that virtue is crucial when one has the chance, but it might be pointless to have the virtue without the opportunity. He goes further in the following chapter praising the leaders who use fortune to acquire power, however, warns that without virtue the reign might not last long.
In chapter XV, Machiavelli disagrees with the idea that a leader should always uphold the highest of moral standards. Machiavelli believes that a leader should have the ability to discern what is to be considered wrong and look for its necessity use. According to Machiavelli, vice should not be reproached, but instead, a ruler should use it to benefit the state. If virtue is to bring harm to the leader, then it should be sacrificed. In his interpretation, Machiavelli believes that any virtuous recommendations made are only good if they have the desired outcome to the leader and the state.
Machiavelli in Chapter XVI discusses the virtue of liberty and generosity to the citizens of the state. Machiavelli believes that spending a fortune on lavish display is unnecessary as this has adverse effects on citizens. He cites various leaders in history and how generosity would affect them one of them being Caesar. Caesar spent a fortune on generosity and winning power, but all this could not have lasted long if he lived to spend on charity. Machiavelli advises the ruler not to spend his fortune on generosity as that would not affect his way of life, and as a result, he would not impose additional taxes on the citizens. As a result, he would be able to maintain his position as the leader and people would not hate him for imposing additional taxes or cost of living for the citizens. Machiavelli believes, therefore, it is better to be termed as a miser but maintains the fortune and a stable environment for the citizens to thrive.
Machiavelli discusses the virtue of love and fear in chapter XVII. In this chapter, he believes that leaders should inspire fear among his follower such that even though they do not love him, they do not hate him either. He believes mercy for wrongdoers only brings chaos and disorder and not protecting the citizens from wrong doers. However, if no mercy is shown, there will be harmony as the leader inspires fear such that nobody would dare cross the line. Although he does not advocate cruelty, Machiavelli believes that it is right to use cruelty in some cases.
Machiavelli’s interpretation of virtue can, therefore, be understood as different from the rest of the philosophers as it may sound more of cruel but defines a clear cut of what it takes to achieve political goals. It is also an applicable stand as several leaders in the political arena and also in businesses use.
Plato begins in his Protagoras argument by saying that everyone wants what they believe is good. He believes that when someone does something bad, it is not because they know it is bad and will just go ahead and do it but it is because they are doing it with a believe back in their mind that whatever they are doing is good. The thing that separates a virtuous person from a non-virtuous one is the knowledge of the good and the bad. From this understanding, it can be concluded that Plato’s concept of human virtue can only be judged from the point of knowledge of good or bad form a decision or an action they choose to take.
In another account, Plato argues that virtue can also be considered from the point of understanding human soul. In The Republic, he argues that there are three components of the soul which include reason, spirit, and appetite. He considers reason as the part of human soul responsible for calculating, and rational thinking, spirit as the part responsible for emotions and appetite as the one responsible for animal-like desires which may be lusting bodily pleasure and itching for things to satisfy oneself. Plato claims that virtue lies in being able to balance the three components of the human soul. Reason should be able to guide the person in making the right decision; spirit should act as a motivator while appetite should listen to reason and spirit. In conclusion, this account of Plato’s concept of virtue means that it is only through following the three component of the human soul that can a person be truly virtuous by deciding what is good or bad.
The concept of virtue in Plato’s and Machiavelli’s Political theory.
The understandings of morality above sheds to light their political principles in that for Plato believes in and governance where virtue is of significant consideration. He believes that for citizens to get a good quality living, the leaders have to be excellent morally and intellectually. In all his arguments, Plato tries to identify what is ideal for every situation in life so as people can use it to mirror even though they might not be able to achieve the stands but be able to come close to it. The writings can be used as a source of inspiration to be good. Machiavelli, on the other hand, believes that as long as the goals set are achieved, virtue does not matter. He proposes that a leader can even use what is considered as not being to achieve what is beneficial to the leader and the citizens. Machiavelli’s political theory is that achieving political goals is more important. Therefore, it is important to do whatever it takes for the leader to achieve the goals. As a result, Machiavelli may be interpreted as a person who advocates for the ruthless ruling, but this is not the case. A clear understanding of his writing would show that he is a realistic person who does not hide under ideologies that can only work in an ideal world but rather an individual who proposes real political ideas that not only worked in the past but will continue to work for a leader in future.
The superior concept and why it is superior.
Machiavelli’s understanding is superior compared to Plato’s. One main reason for this is the time whereby a leader takes a stand considering the time we are living. People’s sense of virtue is mostly influenced by the times they are living. During Plato’s time, people served the state and did whatever was best for the state. However, during Machiavelli’s time, the existence of the state is to wholly serve the citizens hence the state existing to serve people. The distinction, therefore, makes a difference where the leader is allowed to do whatever is necessary for the wellbeing of the citizens. Machiavelli’s idea is superior to Plato’s because the world today is more like Machiavelli’s. Plato’s virtues are ideal where there is a clear cut of what is right and wrong.
In today’s world, not everything is black and white as Plato’s ideologies may dictate. Therefore, hard to adhere to making Machiavelli’s ideas are superior as they are more applicable in today’s world. Although Plato’s virtues are like a mirror for leaders to check themselves not to go far, Machiavelli’s ideologies align with what the society is like today. People are only interested in benefiting what they hold close. Unlike Plato’s thinking where a just person is not supposed to harm his or her enemies, Machiavelli’s ideology supports doing whatever is necessary to eliminate your enemy.
The ideology is very clear for example in business; competitors do whatever is necessary to remain on top. A good political example is that of the past year’s elections. President Donald Trump was tarnishing his opponent’s name so as to stay viable to those who would be voting. As a result, this only means that the world in most cases relies mostly on Machiavelli’s ideology hence making it superior as compared to Plato’s. Plato’s thinking would only work in an ideal world. The problem is that the perfect world does not exist. It could only be used as a mirror hence overshadowed by Machiavelli’s.
Work cited
Bloom, Allan. The Republic Of Plato. 2nd ed., Collins Publishers, 1991, http://www.inp.uw.edu.pl/mdsie/Political_Thought/Plato-Republic.pdf.
Bull, George, and Anthony Grafton. Niccolo Machiavelli The Prince. 4th ed., Penguine Books, 1999,.
We will email this sample to you with pleasure!
Type your email