Machiavelli And Kant's Ideal Analysis

1060 Words3 Pages

Machiavelli and Kant Ideal Ruler
Niccolò Machiavelli and Immanuel Kant were both great thinkers of their time, however their ideas of a perfect ruler greatly differed. Both had very similar views in that they believed that the rulers were the only people who knew what was best for the general public and that it was even necessary to make decisions on the public’s behalf. On the other hand, Machiavelli believed that every decision that a ruler makes should benefit the greater good, while Kant felt that a ruler should treat his people as if they are children because they cannot understand what is good or bad for them. Despite having many differences, the similarities between both Kant’s and Machiavelli’s views are striking.
In The Prince, Machiavelli’s main philosophy was that no matter what, a ruler must put the needs of the greater good above anything else. If a ruler must commit genocide or go to war in order to preserve what is best for the greater good, then he must go as far as he feels necessary. It is also Machiavelli’s belief that a ruler be a complete contradiction; a ruler can be deceiving, yet seem completely trust worthy; he is frugal while appearing extremely giving; he should seem …show more content…

Kant believed that one should never lie because one will never be able to know what the unintended consequences are of said lie. However, Machiavelli believed that it was sometimes necessary to lie because it could strengthen the effect that a ruler has over his people. Lying or not lying has a very large impact on what type of a ruler that a person will be. A lying ruler will have the potential to be a much more powerful ruler because of the deceit that he has accomplished, but he also has a much higher potential to get overthrown if his lies are found out. Kant’s ruler may be much more trust worthy, but there is only so much that a ruler that does as he sees best without

Open Document