Jonathon D. Jones

PSC 275

February 25, 2002

Aristotelian and Machiavellian Views on Virtue

It is obvious to readers of Aristotle and Machiavelli that their respective views on virtue are quite different. But despite these differences, I think there is a great deal of things that they agree on in their theories of virtue, although these tend to be less obvious than the differences. In this essay I will be focusing on these similarities, and showing the ways that these theories are compatible, while also pointing out important differences that can make them incompatible.

Both Aristotle and Machiavelli tried to outline ways that a successful government could be obtained. Virtue of political leaders was related to the good of those they governed; a leader that acts purely for his/her own good was respected by neither theorist. But with this goal in mind, each theorist had different conceptions of what types of things a leader should have to accomplish it. Aristotle would list things like being just, honest, courageous, and so on. Indeed, because political leaders were really just citizens in temporary positions, the virtues of a political leader were the same as that of the citizens. The specific actions that would represent the virtues may be different, perhaps, but the virtues themselves didn’t really change.

For Machiavelli, on the other hand, virtues of political leaders are completely different from the virtues of the ordinary people. Ordinary people could be honest and fair, and so on and so forth, but a political leader simply couldn’t afford to act that way. A successful leader had as his/her primary goal the success of his/her country (or whatever was ruled), and being honest or faithful at all times would compromise this goal. The leader should be honest and faithful when possible, when it wouldn’t be to the detriment of the country, but as soon as these moral rules get in the way of other goals, they must be abandoned.

This shows an important difference: for Aristotle, being virtuous was identical to being moral. For Machiavelli, being virtuous (at least as a political leader) could very well be quite opposite to morality. However, I think it would be a mistake to think that Machiavelli believed that a leader should never be moral; as stated above, the default way to act was morally. He merely believed that morals should be set aside when they are not serving the best interests of the country.

This difference, I think, is due primarily due to the conceptions each theorist had about the way the world operates. Aristotle is quite a bit more idealistic than Machiavelli; he believes the world is such that keeping agreements, being honest, and so on will lead to success in politics, and this only really makes sense if one believes that, for the most part, others will act in the same way. Machiavelli doesn’t believe that, though; he is much more pessimistic about people, and believes most of them will do whatever will help themselves. In such an environment it would be foolhardy to keep agreements, since your “allies” certainly won’t be keeping theirs.

However, suppose, for sake of argument, that at some point the world was such that people really did keep their contracts, and were honest pretty much all of the time. In such a world, a Machiavellian leader would be very like an Aristotelian one, because morality would no longer be counter-productive to a successful government, and could, in fact, even be useful. So I think this is another way that Machiavelli and Aristotle can be compatible: in an ideal world, they are in agreement. Machiavelli just doesn’t believe the world is anything like that.

Machiavellian and Aristotelian views, then, are similar in goals but different in the means to those goals. This stems from different worldviews, and in that context it is easy to see why they would be different. Honesty and faith have no place in a world of deceit and betrayal.