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, “it is evident that the good citizen need not of necessity possess the virtue which makes a good man” (Aristotle “Politics” 54).
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, “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, “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 instructed. 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, “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 identify what is virtuous (Machiavelli 62). Hence, one engages in virtuous acts after a thorough deliberation and no one partakes in the acts unconsciously.
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 “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 “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 “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 “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 “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 benefit 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).
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 becomes 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 “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 “Politics” 60). Aristotle believes in a political system that promotes sharing of power between the various classes in 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 the correct theorist. Aristotle is the correct theorist here. Unlike Machiavelli, Aristotle backs all his arguments with real life situations.
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.
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.