Socrates’ Rejection of Machiavellian Political Immorality
The people and principles around which a state should be formed has concerned political philosophers for centuries. Leaders must possess certain qualities and skills to create a solidified political entity. Certain principles provide a standard from which a state exercises its authority. For Machiavelli, the ideal leader possesses virtù and is not bound by traditional morality. Socrates, in contrast, values a leader who is just, honest, and self-reflective. The Machiavellian state underscores the necessity of violence for the public good, as determined by the Prince. The state, affording to Socrates, is built around virtuous, honest politicians who are willing to yield their power to …show more content…
Machiavelli asserts that Italians are “ready and willing to follow a banner if only someone will raise it,” and identifies the Prince, addressing Lorenzo De Medici, as this great unifier (Machiavelli 126). First, there are specific qualities the Prince must possess and cultivate in order to lead a successful state. Machiavelli uses the trope, “A prince ought to choose the fox and the lion; because the lion cannot defend himself against snares and the fox cannot defend himself against wolves” (84). This quote defines Machiavelli’s ideal virtù: ambition, pragmatism, and foresight. With a vision of the state he will forge, the Prince should, as a fox, use cunning statecraft to evaluate political situations objectively and avoid pitfalls. As a lion, the Prince should recognize and act upon opportunities to gain power, and exercise force if necessary. In employing these qualities, the Prince may also be manipulative by possessing “a mind so framed that should you require not to be so, you may be able and know how to change to the opposite” …show more content…
In Machiavelli’s state, the Prince is the rule of law and is therefore not bound to it. The Prince relies on his own qualities, capabilities, and judgements as the basis for the governing laws. In Crito, Socrates dispels the notion that certain individuals are above the rule of law by giving voice to the Laws of Athens. The Laws reason that by living within a society all citizens are implicitly bound to them. In considering escaping Athens to avoid his unjust death Socrates voices the Laws of Athens’ reason: “…if we try to destroy you, thinking this to be just, you will then try to destroy us the laws and your homeland in return with as much power as you have and claim that you're acting justly in doing so, the man who truly cares about virtue?” (Plato 7). Socrates upholds that the Laws establish a social contract with all citizens in a society, no matter their political or social standing. Socrates would argue that the Prince is cannot declare himself as the rule of law since this form of contract excludes himself and would therefore not be held accountable for any of the violent acts he
The people and principles around which a state should be formed has concerned political philosophers for centuries. Leaders must possess certain qualities and skills to create a solidified political entity. Certain principles provide a standard from which a state exercises its authority. For Machiavelli, the ideal leader possesses virtù and is not bound by traditional morality. Socrates, in contrast, values a leader who is just, honest, and self-reflective. The Machiavellian state underscores the necessity of violence for the public good, as determined by the Prince. The state, affording to Socrates, is built around virtuous, honest politicians who are willing to yield their power to …show more content…
Machiavelli asserts that Italians are “ready and willing to follow a banner if only someone will raise it,” and identifies the Prince, addressing Lorenzo De Medici, as this great unifier (Machiavelli 126). First, there are specific qualities the Prince must possess and cultivate in order to lead a successful state. Machiavelli uses the trope, “A prince ought to choose the fox and the lion; because the lion cannot defend himself against snares and the fox cannot defend himself against wolves” (84). This quote defines Machiavelli’s ideal virtù: ambition, pragmatism, and foresight. With a vision of the state he will forge, the Prince should, as a fox, use cunning statecraft to evaluate political situations objectively and avoid pitfalls. As a lion, the Prince should recognize and act upon opportunities to gain power, and exercise force if necessary. In employing these qualities, the Prince may also be manipulative by possessing “a mind so framed that should you require not to be so, you may be able and know how to change to the opposite” …show more content…
In Machiavelli’s state, the Prince is the rule of law and is therefore not bound to it. The Prince relies on his own qualities, capabilities, and judgements as the basis for the governing laws. In Crito, Socrates dispels the notion that certain individuals are above the rule of law by giving voice to the Laws of Athens. The Laws reason that by living within a society all citizens are implicitly bound to them. In considering escaping Athens to avoid his unjust death Socrates voices the Laws of Athens’ reason: “…if we try to destroy you, thinking this to be just, you will then try to destroy us the laws and your homeland in return with as much power as you have and claim that you're acting justly in doing so, the man who truly cares about virtue?” (Plato 7). Socrates upholds that the Laws establish a social contract with all citizens in a society, no matter their political or social standing. Socrates would argue that the Prince is cannot declare himself as the rule of law since this form of contract excludes himself and would therefore not be held accountable for any of the violent acts he