Politics: Morality And Politics

1744 Words4 Pages

The question of having people who live the most moral lives be involved with politics is a tricky one. Some people think that it makes perfect sense to have the most moral people in politics but on the other hand some people may not see the correlation between morality and politics. In this paper this question will be discussed by looking at the readings of Plato, Socrates, and Machiavelli. The first book that will be discussed is the Republic by Plato, then The Trial and Death of Socrates, and finally The Prince by Machiavelli. This essay will explain the way each writer feels about morality and their role in politics and compare their ideas to one another’s. In the republic Plato is observing the conversations of others and whether or …show more content…

Instead Socrates went home without regard of consequences because he felt what he was doing was morally right. Everything that Socrates says within this book point to the fact that moral people should be in politics and run the city. Socrates has defended the moral life and showed that he believes politics should be moral. “I was the only member f the presiding committee to oppose your doing something contrary to the laws, and I voted against it” (32 b). Socrates lives a moral life and believes the politics that govern the city should be moral. Socrates sees himself as a gadfly that the gods have sent to their city to teach his ways and said that they were doing the wrong thing by executing him because they will not easily find someone else like …show more content…

The way to acquire these new principalities is trough fortune or strength. Machiavelli states that a principality that you acquire which was used to being under its own rule should continue to be under its own rule. “…let them continue to live under their own laws, make them pay you, and create there an administrative and political elite who will remain loyal to you” (17). These people will still feel like they are under their own rule but they will be loyal to the prince. Machiavelli states that a principality acquired through strength is easier to hold control of than one acquired by luck or fortune. The rulers who acquire these principalities through luck remain dependent on who they received the principality from. The ruler of such a principality will not know how to control and maintain his power. The ruler will have no troops of his own that are loyal to him and are willing to

Open Document