Compare And Contrast Machiavelli And More

Machiavelli and More were both humanists and contemporaries of each other during the Renaissance and had witnessed political and religious turmoil in their respective states. Because of this, it led Machiavelli and More to write about how states should be run and how to maintain their societies. However, Machiavelli and More’s view of the relationship between human nature and the possibility of creating an ideal society contrasted one another. Machiavelli’s views in The Prince was more realistic because Machiavelli believed that the prince should regard the interests of the state, not the people and More’s Utopia was more idealistic because he believed that states should reform and regard the interest of the people. Machiavelli believed

Machiavelli believed human nature is manipulative and unchangeable for the better, unlike More who believed human nature can be improved and changed for the better. For example, Machiavelli stated that a prince should be ruthless and use force to gain and maintain power because people in real life are vicious and selfish. In Chapter VI, he explained that people can easily be managed at first, but they are difficult to control over a period of time. He wrote “the nature of the people is variable, and whilst it is easy to persuade them, it is difficult to keep them in that persuasion. And thus it is necessary to take such measure, that, when they believe no longer, it may be possible to make them believe by force” (The Prince, Chapter VI, pg. 2). Here it is proven that a prince who relies on his own ability and force will succeed better than just relying on his own ability, when dealing with the people. He also advised the prince that it is better for the prince to be both loved and feared, but when he cannot be both, then it is better to be feared. Machiavelli again argued that people by nature are

Machiavelli had advised the prince not to trust anyone, but his own ability; More on the other hand believed fully in equality among the people. When governing a state, Machiavelli advised the prince he can rule directly or through magistrates. However, the prince is more vulnerable if he chose the latter because he is dependent on the magistrates. Machiavelli thus further explained in Chapter IX that when there are times of trouble, the magistrates may dispose him through actions against him or by disobeying him. If the magistrates do revolt, the prince will be unable to assume absolute power, because the people are used to obeying the magistrates’ orders rather than the prince’s orders. Machiavelli also argued that people will always try to advise the people for their own interests only, such as the magistrates; this is why the prince should only trust in his own ability. Machiavelli did stated that the prince has the choice to take advices from wise magistrates and listen to their opinions, however, they must do that on his own terms in which the prince must constantly questioned them and also form his own conclusions. The prince should also be cautious of flatterers because they may be a danger to him since “He [the prince], who does otherwise is either overthrown by flatterers, or is so often changed by varying opinions that he falls into contempt” ( The Prince, Chapter XXIII, pp. 1). This