Compare And Contrast Machiavelli And Aristotle

785 Words4 Pages
Although, the political visions of all four philosophers differ from each other there is still a common feature that allows uniting Plato and Aristotle visions and contrasting them with those of Machiavelli and Hobbs. That is the affiliation of the former with the ancient political thought belonging to the modern school of the later. The fundamental difference between these two visions is that Plato and Aristotle saw the goal of the state in guarantying the people’s happiness and flourishment. They both had a view of how the ideal state and society should be organized, although their opinions concerning the way of achieving this goal varied considerably. Machiavelli and Hobbs denied this vision and preferred to operate with reality and facts. They believed that the goal of the state is oriented toward maintaining the peace and establishing social order. Moreover, Plato and Aristotle focused a lot in their works on different forms of government. Plato argued that the in the ideal state the power should be controlled by specially trained elite Guardians which consist of philosophers, who know what is better for the rest of people. Aristotle discussed six forms of government and concluded that the best form is politeia , which in modern world can be understood as “constitutional government” where citizens run the state together…show more content…
Machiavellian Prince does not have to have the same virtues as other people. He must know when to be good and when to use force and stick to the principal that goal justifies the means. In Hobbs theory people in their desire to achieve peace and security from each other in natural state enter an agreement according to which they devote all their rights to an individual whose aim is to maintain the peace. The sovereign may disobey and even change the rules if he has good reasons to
Open Document