Machiavelli & More

Contrary to the tendencies of many philosophers to describe ideals of what ‘ought to be’, Machiavelli sets out to present his own advice on leadership and citizenship through the lens of supposed reality. The Prince is written upon the foundation of perhaps Machiavelli’s most basic assumption of reality: essentially, that “men are wicked” and therefore are always inclined to act out of their own personal desires.  This also means that acting purely good, politically or publicly, will not be beneficial for an individual who wishes to attain or sustain power. 

Machiavelli subsequently contends that a ruler must be willing to harm individual citizens when necessary in order to ultimately help and preserve the state.  Here, More seems to primarily differ from Machiavelli in his opinion of the duty of the state and the individual.  More sees the state responsible for creating a system and a society that fulfills the needs of its citizens; in a sense, it’s the duty of the state to satisfy it’s subjects’ private realms.  This also implies that unlike Machiavelli, More sees people as essentially good, and he is willing to trust them to do the right thing when granted a privilege.  Machiavelli would likely reply that this system lacks a fear of authority, a component essential to preserving the state because people will only act out of their own private interests unless compelled by fear to do otherwise.  Yet, even further, More’s example of the recurring theft problem insists that people will inevitably keep bringing their private desires into the public sphere if the need is strong enough.

Machiavelli also makes distinctions betweens the public and private responsibilities and personas of the rulers in his society. For example, Machiavelli argues that acting purely generous or compassionate will eventually cause a leader to be “hated and despised” by his subjects due to the long-term repercussions and consequent policies his actions will necessitate.  A ruler must only actually possess these ‘favorable’ qualities in moderation, so that eventually, his actions will contribute to the preservation of a stable state.  In order to stay in power, however, the ruler must appear to be in constant possession of these qualities and have a reputation for them, although he should not actually fully embody them.

Through this reasoning, Machiavelli seems to imply that the rulers have some kind of moral superiority over their subjects; they are able to see what will ultimately preserve the state and function to the peoples’ overall benefit even when the public itself cannot.  Subsequently, this very inability of the general public means rulers must carefully manipulate their public reputation to satisfy their subjects and avoid rebellion.  While More’s society may be able to organize itself around moral, commonly held ideals, Machiavelli sees the need for the ruler to address the realistic and pragmatic aspects of preserving a stable society and preventing chaos; while in More’s Utopia, the individual becomes part of a larger, conforming mass – and arguably loses some of their freedom due to their responsibilities to hold up the state – Machiavelli presents a society where citizens are forced to conform by their ruler.

More’s society presents a place where the private lives of individuals are meant to be kept private, in a place of necessity, and the state should facilitate an environment where this necessity should not have to be brought into the social realm. It is only then that problems arise, such as unemployment and theft.  Conversely, Machiavelli attempts to demonstrate that the only functional possibility would be a more transparent society, where the state has more control over the private lives of the citizens, and the rulers remain behind a veil of secrecy.