Aristotle and Machiavelli have been described as political scientists. The two men have differences in terms of philosophies in relation to the vision they had on the political system. Each man was a product of his own time. Aristotle rose from Greece in the Golden Age while Machiavelli sprouts from Medieval Europe. Their cases gave advice and ideas hold weight in modern political aspects considering their philosophies and outlooks which differ. According to Aristotle, he perceived that the main goal of politics was to deliver a “good life” to the society.
Machiavelli’s goal shared the view that the goal for politics was to ensure that stability and power should be maintained no matter what. Each man made strong arguments to defend what they stood for. From a personal perspective, each has the pros and cons. Their views in writing about virtue and ethics compare and contrast. Looking at the goal of each of the two, there is no one individual who is ideally right on how the issue of ethics or virtue should be approached. Going by “The Prince- Machiavelli” and “Nicomachean Ethics- Aristotle” respectively, Machiavelli was an ideal example of a political pragmatist while Aristotle was a political philosopher. The discussion below begins by shedding light on both Aristotle’s and Machiavelli’s source and detail of their school of thought before proceeding to analyze their stands on ethics and virtue.
Both Machiavelli and Aristotle studied history and used the information to make their conclusions. In addition to this, it is critical to highlight that Machiavelli adopted a more empirical approach while Aristotle adopted a reasoned approach. While Machiavelli aimed for results, Aristotle sought for conclusions and definitions that could be used widely later on. Machiavelli had an advantage in his study; he had a considerable larger amount of material to gather information and insight from (Machiavelli 6). He culled 800 years of politics and history that had not been available to Aristotle, who based his observations on the city-states of Greek. From this perspective, therefore, the work by Aristotle had been more theoretical while Machiavelli’s work was more solid and complete.
It could be connected hereby that, the difference in the mode of their research determined their differences in the view of politicians’ goals. Machiavelli in writing The Prince sought to elevate his position through winning a favor from the prince. On the other hand, Aristotle was a philosopher and a scholar in the practice of metaphysics. In writing about politics, he had sought to satisfy part of his scholarly career. On the basis of politics, Aristotle perceived the humans as political animals. He, therefore, saw politics as a nature force thereby concluding that each had a role in political activity (Aristotle 14). Aristotle summed up that the goal in politics should be to deliver a good life in which the members of a society should; that is, the citizens are allowed to prosper. On the other hand, Machiavelli was not a believer in these lofty goals. According to him, politics could only be summarized power, control and stability.
Citizens are key in the political process. However, they were viewed on different lights by both Machiavelli and Aristotle. The latter was of the view that they were the state’s backbone, and they had a certain responsibility towards the state. Despite that, Aristotle viewed that the citizens were not equal (Aristotle 22). He was of the opinion that, a citizen differs from another and that the community’s salvation should be and is a business for them all. While Aristotle shared the opinion that the citizens are part of the political system, Machiavelli was of the view that the citizens should not think about politics. The citizens should listen to their political leaders and do what they are told to do.
Virtue and Ethics in Politics
The discussion above highlights and gives a foundation for the views of ethics and virtue that come to play in politics. In his work, Aristotle shed light on civic virtue and personal virtue as well. While he identified that the two were distinct, he highlighted that the two were not dependent on each other. To him, a good state and a political state should be founded on civic virtue. He adds that for one to be termed as a good citizen, there is a high necessity that there be an issue of personal virtue that makes a good man. On the other hand, Machiavelli had a much simpler stance on ethics and virtue. To him they were not essential in the political play. His opinions seemed to be more complex in a way. For instance, he states that if by any means the prince looks to maintain the rule he is in charge of, he should be prepared to not make use of or in person be virtuous (Machiavelli 65). He states that, in his writing, it is not about writing about what has been said and indicated as rules, he sought to deliver those rules that would be applicable in a nation to make it a republic.
In his defense, Machiavelli made the explanation that a ruler should be prepared to act without considering ethics and or virtue because those around him would probably do likewise. His approach towards ethics and virtue is thus a relaxed one. In stating that a prince should do whatever he deems right in defending and maintaining his power, he proceeds to add that a prince could from a time to another turn to cruelty in which he could settle the condition of a country once and for all (Machiavelli 64). The differences were seen in the respect to how the two perceived ethics and virtue could be analyzed on a much deeper eye. To begin with, Machiavelli strongly believed that a bad state was that in which the leader was not in control of the nation.
The view of Aristotle could be questioned as well. This arises when he compares oligarchy vs. aristocracy, tyranny vs. monarchy and democracy vs. polity (Aristotle 13). By comparing the first, he notes that an oligarchy was the worst as its main goal was to horde money and power. For the second, he notes that tyrant was much worse stating that monarch governments demonstrated some care towards the subjects. Lastly in comparing polity and democracy, he was in support of polity. He shared the opinion that the polity system was the best; he was in view that polity system ensured that this maintained power balance between the poor, middle class and the rich.
Aristotle and Machiavelli have a similarity in that; the later defended that ideal rulers would defend their power, the law the people. According to Aristotle, a ruler should serve the people. The goal of a leader should be done common good for all. To this regard, it is as if that Aristotle claims that the leader would at times consider a good leader as one who would go towards being unethical in ensuring that the common good of the citizens is being protected from disruptions. From this view, Machiavelli and Aristotle perceptions seem to come together in that, they look at what is currently happening and then moves to attempt to advise the politician on the best possible way to handle it. The difference is only on their goals. Aristotle looks for that good life for the people whereas Machiavelli wants to ensure that either ethically or unethically, the political leader maintains the power.
Aristotle shared the view that the common good should have been targeted to the middle-class person. It seems like they are the determinants on what should be termed either good or bad. Therefore, he states that the political leaders should mainly target to satisfy them. This would raise questions on the ethical considerations especially looking at the poor whose political needs are much greater. It would them mean that. If a leader acted to defend and stand up for the middle class through acting unvirtuously, Aristotle would be in support. Machiavelli has no recognition for the people; he is of the opinion that a leader has to do what he has to do, regardless of the people, to ensure that power and sustainability is maintained.
Both Machiavelli and Aristotle record disagreements on various things. To begin with, the middle-class is highlighted as the back-bone group in a society according to the latter. Machiavelli is in support of government in which there should be a single ruler in place. Examples presented by him were those evident in monarchical rulers. In his work, Aristotle had compared tyranny and monarchy in which he was in support of monarchy stating it was better as it demonstrated some concern for the people. Machiavelli stated that the people should be left alone, and they should follow what their political leader stated. The goal should be to ensure the leader maintains the power.
Looking at the two, the question of which is right eventually comes up. Going by ethics and virtue consideration, there is no approach that is completely right on its own. Each view need to be improved in its application especially on modern politics. It is critical to note that both works indicate that a democracy is not an appropriate governance approach. Looking at Aristotle, he encourages that there should be personal and civic virtue in politics. That is right. He is in support of ethical leadership and actions in leadership in ensuring that common good for the people of a nation is attained. However, an unethical issue arises when he notes that the people of a nation are not equal even when it comes to making political decision and in the judgment of common good. He states that it is the middle-class group that should be the main receptor of common good leaving out the poor and the rich, unethical. Proceeding further, Machiavelli’s approach has a higher intensity of unethical and unvirtuous approach. When he focuses on power and stability on leadership, his main concern is the leader making the citizen insignificant. It proceeds to state that the leader should even step out of the way and act in ways that do not consider the virtuous guidelines. Such leadership could be dangerous especially in modern day where democracy has been encompassed into the human rights platform.
Work Cited
Aristotle., D. P Chase, and J. A Smith. The Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle. London: J.M. Dent, 1911. Print.
Machiavelli, Niccolò, and Peter E Bondanella. The Prince. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Print.
