Machiavelli and Aristotles idea of virtue

Introduction Machiavelli and Aristotle’s perceptions towards virtue endure until today. The differences in their perceptions towards politics allowed the two to come up with diverse dimensions of ethics and virtues as well as their role in politics. Aristotle comes up with a clear distinction between personal virtue and civic virtue and has the conviction that the two are autonomous. Hence, â€Å"it is evident that the good citizen need not of necessity possess the virtue which makes a good man† (Aristotle â€Å"Politics† 54).Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on Machiavelli and Aristotle’s idea of virtue specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More According to Aristotle, civic virtue is critical to politics and it facilitates in promoting national harmony. On the other hand, Machiavelli takes a different position with respect to ethics and virtue. Unlike Aristotle, Machiavelli does not find virtue to be of great significance. Machiavelli posits, â€Å"Therefore, if a prince wants to maintain his rule, he must be prepared not to be virtuous and to make use of this or not according to need† (65). Machiavelli vs. Aristotle According to Machiavelli, â€Å"if one considers everything well, one will find something appears to be virtue, which if pursued would be one’s ruin, and something else appears to be vice, which if pursued results in one’s security and well-being† (62). Machiavelli uses an empirical approach to explain what entails virtue. He posits that an individual might have limited cognitive abilities and thus can fail to fathom why something is erroneous. On the other hand, things that were once considered virtuous can turn out to be erroneous. In a way, Machiavelli is referring to both authority and self-examination. At times, people fail to acknowledge virtue not due to flaws in their perception, but because they may have been wrongly instruct ed. Consequently, Machiavelli believes that when deciding on what is virtuous, people should not consider only what is ethically right or abide by custom authorities. Machiavelli comes up with a utilitarian understanding of virtue. He claims, â€Å"For something to be a virtue in the moral sense, it cannot seriously compromise our worldly well-being† (Machiavelli 69). In this way, he restricts the scope that moral virtue can cover. One wonders if he accords any significance to moral virtue. Machiavelli considers those leaders that are capable of transforming the world to meet their needs to be virtuous. In addition, he perceives outstanding political skills as virtuous. One of the limitations of Machiavelli’s idea about virtue is that he does not show what virtue really comprises and how one can cultivate it. Both Aristotle and Machiavelli believed that no virtue could come out of ignorance. Machiavelli posits that when one reflects on everything well, s/he can identif y what is virtuous (Machiavelli 62). Hence, one engages in virtuous acts after a thorough deliberation and no one partakes in the acts unconsciously.Advertising Looking for essay on political sciences? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More On the other hand, Aristotle claims that virtues are temperaments for choice. He holds the conviction that for one to act from virtue, he or she has to determine if his or her undertakings are ethically correct. For one’s intentions to reflect virtue, s/he must proceed with complete awareness of the state of affairs. One cannot proceed out of ignorance. Aristotle asserts that only the premeditated or deliberate actions can be accorded praise. According to Aristotle, virtue trait is neither defective nor excessive (Aristotle â€Å"The Nicomachean Ethics† 41). He claims that virtue trait does not yield either defective or excessive feelings or actions. Hence, individuals ought to feel and act in line with the mean. Nevertheless, Aristotle posits that it is hard to come up with a definite formula for determining the mean. In its place, virtuous people should depend on morally sensitive views to understand where virtue lies (Aristotle â€Å"The Nicomachean Ethics† 51). The virtuous people identify and react to the morally significant elements available in varied contexts and modify their intentions and actions accordingly. John McDowell buys to this Aristotelian idea of virtue when he claims that virtue comprises perceptual sensitivity to the ethically pertinent qualities of one’s plight, which is a form of perceptual skill. Aristotle refutes the claim that virtue depends on nature (Aristotle â€Å"The Nicomachean Ethics† 56). He is against the claim that a person may be born with virtue. For Aristotle, nature subjects people to embrace virtue. Even though habit facilitates in the establishment of virtues, Aristotle holds that a virtue does not comprise a habit. He states that for an individual to nurture a certain virtue, one ought to partake in activities that resemble the virtue (Aristotle â€Å"The Nicomachean Ethics† 59). Aristotle claims that for a person to develop a sense of justice, s/he should engage in just actions. The habit of engaging in just actions makes one just. Nevertheless, the habit itself does not make one just. By participating in virtuous actions, an individual is acquainted with what right deeds are like. Once he develops the virtue, he can employ the empirical wisdom to work rightly (Aristotle â€Å"The Nicomachean Ethics† 63). Hence, according to this argument, Aristotle believes that one can acquire virtue, and hence it is not an inherent quality or something given by nature. Political philosophy Due to their divergent ideas regarding virtue, Aristotle and Machiavelli hold different political philosophies. Machiavelli believes that virtue entails doing what one feels is of great b enefit to him or her even though others might suffer from it. He believes in a political system where the leader has absolute powers (Machiavelli 52).Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on Machiavelli and Aristotle’s idea of virtue specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More According to him, a bad state is one whereby the leader depends on advices from his juniors. Machiavelli believes that for a political system to be stable, one ought to depend on his or her principles and not borrow ideas from other people. He claims that virtues acquired from other people might plunge one to problems when it comes to a point of defending his or her actions (Machiavelli 68). He claims that it is hard for a leader to maintain power if s/he has not acquired it out of his or her virtue. Machiavelli believes that depending on another person’s fortune or will is disastrous to leaders since such will or fortune is unstable. It become s hard for a leader to take full control of his or her subjects given that the leader does not develop the art of commanding (Machiavelli 72). Aristotle holds the belief that political leaders should serve their subjects and not enrich themselves at the subjects’ expense. Based on his perception of virtue, he puts forwards six forms of government. They include tyranny, oligarchy, monarchy, aristocracy, polity, and democracy (Aristotle â€Å"Politics† 58). He compares all the systems of government and castigates the systems that seek to enrich the leader. While democracy bestows power to the public, Aristotle believes that such a government system had adverse effects on the less fortunate in the society. It promotes insecurity, especially if the poor opt to take to the streets seeking to enrich themselves at the expense of the rich (Aristotle â€Å"Politics† 60). Aristotle believes in a political system that promotes sharing of power between the various classes i n society. A system of government like polity ensures an even distribution of power among the poor, middle class, and the rich. Hence, the system fosters a peaceful coexistence in the entire society. Conclusion After analyzing both Aristotle’s and Machiavelli’s ideas, I agree that the two are influential, but in different dimensions. In a bid to identify the correct theorist, I approach the two men from a perspective of an individual that is seeking to determine the most appropriate form of governance suitable for the contemporary world. Aristotle’s views on the objectives of politics, forms of governments, and duties of the public are convincing and they fit well to the contemporary global politics. On the other side, Machiavelli’s views on the role of ethics and virtue in politics appear to be in line with what is actually happening in the contemporary political environment. Nonetheless, this aspect does not imply that according to me, Machiavelli is th e correct theorist. Aristotle is the correct theorist here. Unlike Machiavelli, Aristotle backs all his arguments with real life situations.Advertising Looking for essay on political sciences? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More Besides, he approaches his arguments from different dimensions and manages to show how one can nurture and practice virtue. On the other hand, Machiavelli fails to back a majority of his arguments with real life situations. Besides, he approaches the idea of virtue from a self-centered approach. Moreover, Machiavelli does not give an account of how one can nurture virtue, thus affecting the credibility of his argument. Concept of Individual Freedom Introduction Rousseau and Mill were political philosophers with interest in understanding what entailed individual freedom. Nevertheless, the two do not share common views regarding individual liberty. Mill perceives individual liberty as freedom of self-control in a mutual context (Mill 11). He focuses on the development of man’s ethical character through psychological, social, and political liberty. Mill believes that everyone in the society is bound by an equal measure of personal freedom. Hence, the main reason why people come together in the society is to ensure that they do not infringe into others’ liberty. In addition, Mill has the conviction that the society works to maintain its advancement and prevent its extermination, by giving room for an open personal expression. On the other hand, Rousseau views individual freedom as comprising of a collective body bound by a general will (Rousseau 3). This paper compares Rousseau’s idea of individual freedom with Mill’s idea. Rousseau vs. Mill According to Mill, a belief is insignificant if it is only approved as a fact without being comprehended by those who embrace it. He elucidates, â€Å"There is only too great a tendency in the best beliefs and practices to degenerate into the mechanical†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (Mill13). Mill claims that to curb this issue, a belief should be discussed fearlessly, regularly, and completely. Otherwise, people will consider it a dead doctrine. Mill claims that for any truth to apply to an individual, one has to use his or her views and judgment in ascertaining the truth. He believes that the veracity of any opinion makes part of its usefulness and no opinion that is against the truth can be of any use. Consequently, Mill believes that for individuals to trust in any opinion, it has to be of significance to them. Moreover, people are different, and thus truth ought to vary from one person to another (Mill13). Based in these postulations, Mill holds that limiting individual freedom means rendering the entire society inert and inhibiting its progress. Progress comes from allowing individual liberties like personal expression. Allowing individual freedom gives a society a wider range of opinions and ideas to choose from, thus encouraging growth. Conforming to traditions without understanding their values does not facilitate personal development. Consequently, individual freedom is identical to individual growth. Mill claims that when a person values him or herself, s/he is in a better positio n to be of significance to others (Mill15). He asserts that through personal development, an individual develops the entire society. Mill claims that to understand how individual freedom facilitates in social bonding, one ought to understand the interaction between individuals and the state. Mill posits, â€Å"The individual is not accountable to society for its actions in so far as these concern the interests of no person but himself† (21). Besides, individual freedom, just like other freedoms, surpasses all other authorities. Therefore, individuals are allowed an open exercise over them in Mill’s principle. Mill is categorical that the law should not enforce itself, for example on a person acting in a manner criticized by others, since s/he has the ideal liberty to act and bear the cost of his or her actions as long as the actions do not infringe into the freedom of others. The society only takes control of individual freedom if an individual’s actions tend to violate the society’s freedom. Rousseau views the general will as the foundation of freedom, justice, and order in the society (Rousseau 3). He believes that the general will is superior in the manner that it differentiates the will of individuals. The general will cannot wish or injure itself since it comprises people it affects, and thus all its interests are in congruence with the interests of the people. For Rousseau, general will always comes up with decisions that are beneficial to all (Rousseau 4). In addition, it derives its generality from the mutual interests that unite people and not from the number of voices. Hence, popular vote can facilitate in making effective determinations. Rousseau claims that in spite of the general will, every person remains independent. Although the â€Å"general will† determines what is right, individuals have voluntarily opted to embrace it, thus remaining their own masters. More particularly, the common dedication amongst all p eople is such that, â€Å"†¦ in fulfilling it †¦ a man cannot work for others without at the same time working for himself† (Rousseau 5). However, it is hard for an individual to detach himself or herself from the general will. This aspect inhibits individualism, as one has to obey the rules of the general will. The better regime Evaluating the two regimes, one may claim that they both have their benefits and limitations. Although Rousseau’s regime would promote social cohesion as people come together to address common interests, the system would be prone to resistance from its members. In spite of people sharing some common will, they might also have private will that differs with the general will. In such a case, the regime would encounter stiff opposition as people seek to have space to attend to their private will, which in a way might violate the established general will. Moreover, the dedications that bring people together in Rousseau’s regime ar e mandatory only since they are communal. It would be hard for one to leave the social body should he or she cease to share mutual interests with others. In such a case, the affected person would not enjoy his or her freedom since s/he would remain in the group unwillingly. Mill’s regime is better as compared to Rousseau’s regime. The regime not only gives room for personal rights, but also provides the mechanism to safeguard these rights. Such a regime encourages commitment from the society. In a situation where one is not constrained by anything apart from the effects of his actions on others, it is possible for an individual to pursue his or her personal goals without interference. A regime that calls for people to observe mutual interests not only frustrates individual’s effort to pursue personal goals, but also inhibits innovation. Every person works towards improving his or her living standards. Consequently, individuals would be willing to go a step furth er to come up with innovations to help them to pursue their goals. Nevertheless, if people were required to ensure that their innovations are in line with the needs of everyone in the society or a set of regulations agreed upon by the entire society, they would be discouraged from pursuing their goals in fear of violating the established regulations. Without individuality, it is hard to accomplish individual liberty in society. I would rather be a citizen in Mill’s regime. The fact that this regime promotes individuality makes it possible for individuals in the society to uphold social order. In a bid to pursue personal goals, one has to enjoy personal liberty as well as peace. In Mill’s regime, people would work hard to preserve their freedom and avoid infringing into the freedom of others. Hence, such a society would coexist in harmony. Mill’s regime would promote individual freedom, order, and justice. In such an environment, it is possible for an individual to make significant steps towards development. Conclusion Rousseau and Mill present two opposing views about individual liberty. They put forward two regimes that perceive individual liberty in different dimensions. Rousseau’s regime perceives liberty in the form of the general will that brings individuals together to work towards achieving mutual interests. On the other hand, Mill’s regime perceives individual liberty as independent with every person having a set of personal interests and goals. Mill believes that individual freedom brings people together as they seek to come up with measures to make sure that they do not infringe into the freedom of others. The main limitation of Rousseau’s regime is that it is susceptible to opposition from the members due to conflict of interests. Moreover, the regime discourages innovation and individual growth as mutual interests bind all members. On the other hand, Mill’s regime has numerous benefits. The regime al lows individuals to pursue personal interests as long as the interests do not interfere with the freedom of others. Hence, Mill offers a better regime that can foster not only personal growth, but also societal growth. Works Cited Aristotle. The Nicomachean Ethics, London: Penguin Classics, 2004. Print. Aristotle. The Politics, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985. Print. Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince, New York: Hackett Pub Co., 1995. Print. Mill, John. ‘On Liberty’ and Other Writings: Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. Print. Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. The Social Contract, London: Penguin Books, 1968.Print. This essay on Machiavelli and Aristotle’s idea of virtue was written and submitted by user Avianna Hyde to help you with your own studies. You are free to use it for research and reference purposes in order to write your own paper; however, you must cite it accordingly. You can donate your paper here.