Is a just person the best choice for a ruler; many philosophers have laid out different ways in which they believe a society should be ran whether it be a single ruler such as a prince or multiple rulers like philosophy kings. Machiavelli intended for a society/principality to be ruled a strong ruler whether he be just or unjust, moral or immoral; whereas Plato believed for a society to work a just ruler such as the philosopher kings along with its other social counterparts was the perfect society. This paper intends to show how a just ruler was not something Machiavelli saw as pertinent to a society's survival whereas Plato deemed it to be at necessary for order and efficiency and for a city to work.
Machiavelli's book The Prince was a letter written, with the intentions of telling the Prince of Italy on how to run the state, or to keep better control of it. Machiavelli talks about hereditary principalities, and new principalities how they are acquired, and how to keep rule, or what is the best way to keep rule in these newly acquired states. Machiavelli tells the prince what he feels is the best way to establish his rule, and keep it and he does so by providing examples from ancient times; he provides the prince with not only the successful states and rulers but also the ones that have failed and points out why those princes/emperors, their rule, and their state met their demise. Machiavelli could not have felt that a just ruler was the best ruler for a state because through out his whole book Machiavelli when talking about the ways in seizing a state he says that violence is one way in seizing a state; furthermore, in holding on to a seized state he talks about devastating them, and conquering them as well none of a just ruler. In addition, one of the main points that Machiavelli pushes through out his book is the use of force and fear. It is noted that force is a great way for a Prince to become "strong, secure, and respected"; and he links this...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document