On the Necessities Contained in Politics: Socrates Vs. Machiavelli

Through careful analytical reasoning both Socrates and Machiavelli produce convincing arguments in the pursuit of an infallible response to the political questions of power and justice. Although they both have logical arguments the fact remains that two fundamentally different concepts about politics are being discussed. Socrates believed in morality and ethics pertaining to politics and politics pertaining to the soul and it's maintenance. Socrates is concerned more with personal liberty and accepted social norms; his simple view is ecclesiastically pleasing but not overly realistic without mass participation. Machiavelli, in stark contrast, believed in preserving the status quo and attaining as much power and influence for the individual as possible. State preservation was the most important aspect in his The Prince and he entertains all ideas and possible outcomes in politics as opposed to Socrates' limited moral solutions in Gorgias. Machiavelli's more ruthless and pragmatic approach to maintaining a state and the liberties of its inhabitants is more results oriented and realistic. Each introduces theories on power and justice in an attempt to create an acute understanding of the social relationships referred to as politics.

The first of many differences between Socrates and Machiavelli is their opinions on power. Power can be said to be the ability to get someone or thing to do what they would not normally have done. This constitutes influence and sometimes force. While both concede that influence plays a large role in politics the methods gone about to create such influence are described very differently. Socrates states that the persuasive influence created by rhetoricians or people with agendas is a false and uninformed belief that is created by baiting the subject with rewards . As he states "Rhetoric, according to my view, is the ghost or counterfeit of a part of politics", meaning that while speaking and making views and opinions public the rhetorician seeks to sway opinions based on belief and they anchor this belief in the ignorance of the masses . Simply put the rhetorician seeks only to further his own ideas and gain support through cunning, "...the rhetorician need not know the truth about things; he has only to discover some way of persuading the ignorant that he has more knowledge than those who know?" This method of persuasion is ignoble to Socrates and therefore bad and not worthy of practice . Socrates' main focus is maintaining the soul and preserving the quality of goodness found there, which is why anything deemed bad will taint the soul and result in forfeiture of goodness. From Machiavelli's standpoint any action that will bring him closer to the main objective is acceptable. This includes persuading people to believe what he wants, "...it is worthwhile being organized in such a way that, when people no longer believe, they can be made to believe by force" . While no note is given to whether the belief referred to is factual the statement is to be taken as a means to an ends and thus factuality is not a factor when one only considers results. Thus Machiavelli sees no reason why falsehood and violence should not be tools that are utilized in maintaining a certain level of authority. "He understood so clearly that men must be either won over or destroyed," speaking of an admired Duke and his acceptance of the role he had to play in society . Machiavelli appreciated cold calculation and weighing all of his options, whether just or unjust. Morality came second to self and state preservation; thus leading people to believe what is not necessarily true mattered little to him. Influence was a key in maintaining a state and preserving the leadership of his patrons.

Hinging directly on the issue of influence and belief is the usefulness of justice in politics. To Socrates justice is a state of the soul and truth is the means by which knowledge is acquired. Socrates states that justice is a part of the soul having to do with "men's highest interests", as apposed to the simple pleasures with which people base their everyday decisions . "Men's highest interests," according to Socrates, are the pursuit of "The Good" and maintenance of the individual soul . Through proper deduction the prudent man can always do what is best for his own soul, which in turn is in his best interests and the interests of his society. Socrates declares "...doing injustice is the greatest of evils," and therefore it is unthinkable to commit unjust acts. Socrates argument presents a utopian society where ethics and truth govern all people . If all people were dominated by a need to maintain a perfect soul then his theory would be infallible and society would be a just and predictable environment. That is not the case as Machiavelli points out. Machiavelli is more of a cynic and a realist than Socrates. His methods while unethical, and unjust in some cases, bring rationality and necessity to the forefront of politics:

And since the distance between how one lives and how one should live is so great, he who discards what he does for what he should do, usually learns how to ruin rather than maintain himself... Therefore, it is necessary for a prince, if he wants to maintain his position, to develop the ability to not be good, and use or not use this ability as necessity dictates CH 15 PG 89.

Another aspect of truth and justice addressed by Machiavelli is whether or not a political leader should keep his word or not. Before an understanding on this topic can be reached it is important to further differentiate his opinion of people from Socrates'. Machiavelli believes people are bad inherently and that because of that they will always do what is best for their individual self, whether it be a just or unjust action CH 18 pg97. In so believing, his cynical nature rises to the surface in statements such as, " A prudent ruler, therefore, cannot, and should not, keep his word when keeping it is to his disadvantage, and when the reasons that made him promise no longer exist" Ch18 pg96-97. As far as justice is concerned, Machiavelli believes that having justice on his side is a matter of convenience rather than necessity proved in declarations like, "he (the prince) should not deviate from good if possible, but know how to act badly when necessary" CH 18 PG98. The moral issue of acting badly is never addressed as evil or portrayed as wicked whereas with a more Socratic outlook one would never have conceived of doing such a thing no matter how necessary. "Then I said truly, Polus that neither you, nor I, nor any man, would rather, do than suffer injustice; for to do injustice is the greater evil of the two" (WEBSITE).

While both arguments are convincing only Machiavelli's realistic outlook could be applied to society. Although, if Socrates were to concede that anything done for the benefit of the many and preservation of the perceived good is just, whether wicked or evil, then some of his theories could be applied to The Prince. In the same light Machiavelli is less moral and more true to human nature and the need for survival, yet if he adopted a more moral and ethical practice of politics then maybe others would adopt the same method and Socrates could create "souls" for all of them. Souls or state Machiavelli had the most realistic if the less noble perspective of politics and created a good comparison for the Socratic morality contained in Gorgias. The fundamental difference of morality in both works creates an offspring of totally and radically different perspectives on life and the people you interact with. Machiavelli creates a cynical but more accepted and purposeful way to conduct politics.

Plato, Gorgias, (http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/gorgias.1b.txt 2000)

Plato (http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/gorgias.1b.txt 2000)

Plato (http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/gorgias.1b.txt 2000)

Plato (http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/gorgias.1b.txt 2000)

Machiavelli, The Prince (Great Britain: Orion 1995) 55.

Machiavelli

Plato (http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/gorgias.1b.txt 2000)

Plato (http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/gorgias.1b.txt 2000)

Plato, Gorgias. (http://eserver.org/philosophy/plato/gorgias.txt 2000)