Unlike Plato, Machiavelli had a much less idealistic view of leadership in mind. or, rather, his view of leadership was not wrapped up in a personal view of ethics and virtue. Plato obviously believed, after all, that the best leader would be the wisest and the most moral. It was these qualities that should be encouraged and these qualities that would make said individual a superior leader. Machiavelli argued implicitly that this was an erroneous understanding of human nature and the characteristics that constitute excellent leaders. At the heart of Machiavelli's description of the perfect leader, his idealized prince, is the argument that personal virtue and ethics are completely unrelated to public success (Kemerling). Hence, from this we see that the good leader will not necessarily be the same as the virtuous individual. This assertion stands in stark contrast to Plato's argument about the nature of leadership and highlights the way in which leaders generally operate in real world situations, instead of how we would like them to act.
Machiavelli based this argument on the quite straightforward assumption that no matter how virtuous or ethical one leader acts, there is no way to guarantee that all other leaders or involved people will follow the same high moral code (Kemerling). Following individualized rules in politics, in other words, puts the leader at a significant disadvantage when compared with his or her peers. To be an excellent leader, according to Machiavelli, one must understand when and how to do the things virtuous and ethical individuals could never consider doing. Sometimes in order to achieve the goals of society, the goals of the group, or the goals of the individual, it is necessary to perform acts that can be considered immoral or unethical. It becomes more important that...
Too many leaders today do not see much as necessarily bad or good, and they simply go through their life without realizing there is so much more out there to be done and seen, just like the people in Plato's Cave. They have blinders on -- some of which are part of society, and some of which are self-inflicted. If only they would break out of the chains which enslave
Plato and Machiavelli, and how their ideas on leadership compare and contrast with each other. To do this, their respective works the Republic and the Prince will be used. In addition to the works by the two main authors considered, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy will provide important insight on Machiavelli and his work. Indeed, the piece authored by Nederman (2009) contains a section that specifically considers The Prince and
Philosophy In Book I of Plato's Republic, Thrasymachus, Glaucon, and Adeimantus provide intellectual foils for Socrates's ethical philosophy. Socrates responds to Thrasymachus's stance, which is essentially that, "the life of an unjust person is better than that of a just one," (p 88; 347e). Thrasymachus goes so far as to state that justice is "noble naivete," and therefore not worth pursuing at all (348c). Glaucon immediately takes the side of Thrasymachus,
Plato and Socrates -- Human Soul There are a number of philosophical tenets that have been the subject of intense scrutiny since humans coalesced into formal societies. Who are we as a species? Where do we fit in with the universe? What is morality? Do the ends justify the means? Moreover, most of all, why are we here and are we free to act as individuals toward greater good? Free will,
Plato's Republic Plato Republic In Plato's Republic, he states that democracy is second only to tyranny as the worst form of government because tyranny arises from democracy. This goes against what most people believe of democracy. Today, democracy is viewed as the best political system because the prime tenets of a democracy are freedom and equality. Essentially, democracy is all about free people governing themselves. However, Plato is critical of democracy precisely
They do not occupy space. Nevertheless, although the Form of a circle has never been seen -- -indeed, could never be seen -- -mathematicians and others do in fact know what a circle is. That they can define a circle is evidence that they know what it is. For Plato, therefore, the Form "circularity" exists, but not in the physical world of space and time. It exists as a
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now