The Prince and the Philosopher King

by Jon Carlyon


   	Since the dawn of civilization minds have been deliberating on the idea of virtue and it's place in society. In ancient Athens the philosopher Plato believed virtue to be the harmonious balance of courage, temperance, and wisdom. This balance produced the greatest of virtues which was justice. It was this supreme virtue that every Athenian should have hoped to achieve, not only for the benefit of their own spirit and being but also for the benefit of society. In his book The Republic Plato focuses on justice and it's place in the ideal state. Nearly eighteen hundred years later the Italian politician Niccolo Machiavlli defined virtue as an individuals continuous journey towards glory. In his book The Prince MachiaveUi claims that the greatest virtue is for one to possess strength, courage, talent, ability and above all intlligence and then utilize these to achieve glory within their community. If this seems like the selfish-thinking of a power hungry politician, that's simply because it is. In The Prince the individual who possessed and utilized these qualities properly was the one to rule the community. . . This individual was the Prince. In The Republic Plato stressed the proper balance of the cardinal virtues. And the only individuals capable of properly balancing these virtues and coming to realize the form or essence of justice are the philosophers of the state. These philosophers, possessing the greatest understanding of Justice were to Plato the only ones capable of ruling his Ideal State. . . This ruler was. the Philosopher King.                               

		Both Plato and Machiavelli agree that by their own definitions their rulers were those who possess the greatest degree of virtue. Though these definitions are different and have little in common, one being virtue as an essence that the Philosopher King comes to realize, the other being virtue as utilizing ability to attain glory of which the most able is The Prince, they both reflect on the prevailing ideas of their time and minds. Plato being a philosopher believed humankind had but one purpose and that was to come to know the truth or as he refers to it in the Allegory Of The Cave, the Realm of the Forms. This realization and understandiitg of the forms was instant enlightenment. Only the philosopher could come to know the forms through study and deliberation and once these forms are known and understood the philosopher truly knows what is called "The 'Good." Plato claimed that to know the good is to do the good. The philosopher who knows the good, by his nature as a philosopher who loves wisdom and seeks truth, is unable to act against the good once he knows it. Who better to lead the ideal state?    
		Niccolo Machiavelli, being a politician had often witnessed the dealings between communities and their leaders. Machiavelli believed the ideal state was a pipe dream. He believed that society never maintained the proper balances Plato's state depended on. Machiavelli an avid student of political history believed that the past had shown that any state, kingdom or principality made up of individual citizens was a society made up of threats to the order within that community. Any leader that bound themselves to leadership without interrupting an ideal balance was simply setting themselves up for their own demise. Where Plato sought to create the ideal, Machiavelli sought to adapt to the real by any means necessary without the confines of the form of justice to limit ones ability.    
		Using these two conceptions of virtue one could easily distinguish their opposing viewpoints. I believe that because of these base definitions of virtue Plato has come to be known as the philosopher who unselfishly seeks virtue and justice for the sake of virtue and justice,  while Machiavelli has come to be known as the ruthless politician who seeks virtue and justice for the sake of personal glory. But I also believe that Plato was not as selflessly motivated as he hoped his students or posterity to believe. Many of the cruelties Machiavelli felt a prince should administer are openly condoned in Plato's republic as necessary actions by the philosopher king. But before I focus on the actions of these two rulers first I feel I should deterrmine the duty or the function these two rulers serve in their own communities.     
		Plato argued that the function of the philosopher king was to serve the good of the community by striving towards the ideal realization of the form or of knowledge, while those governed benefited from the harmony produced by this virtue. Though Machiavelli seems to agree that a good ruler's capital goal is to serve the good of the community, the prince must maintain order among the people by securing his own power and protection. The people governed will benefit from their ruler's ability to strengthen and preserve his political power. In both cases good rulers exist only to establish and maintain order in the community. But how far may a ruler go to maintain this order? Is a ruler ever justified in taking unjust measures to achieve just goals? Now that we've determined the nature and purpose of both Plato's and Machiavelli's ruler can we answer this question and in turn demonstrate Plato's tendency to stray from virtue for virtues sake.    
		Machiavelii believed that order within the state was a product of a ruler's ability to secure that order. This ability within a ruler was essentially a combination of many qualities, among them are determination, graciousness, diplomacy, ability to protect himself, to be loved and feared at the same time and to conquer either by force or fraud. These last two qualities mentioned, alone, shed light upon Machiavelli's stance on unjust means for a just end. For any good prince, the end was always the good of the people, and this good depended upon the political ability of the prince to preserve the state. Since each was vital to the existence of the other the synthesis can be seen as the end being, "for the good of the people, preserve the state by any means necessary." Among these means, Machiavelli condoned cruelty and deceit only when these and other vices served the security of his state.   
		 Though Machiavelli condoned the use of cruelty, he felt that a prince must administer it diplomatically to avoid the danger of misusing it. Lavish use of cruelty by a prince will direct hate within its victims towards the prince. This hate, if not bridled could lead to the ruler's destruction from civil uprising by those who feel they are oppressed. Cruelty must only be used, according to Machiavelli, when it is a device aimed at establishing order within a state verging on or within chaos. Even under these circumstance he claims that, "Injuries should be inflicted all at once, for the less they are tasted, the less they offend." If a prince were to establish order by cruelty and continue to administer that cruelty, this will only amplify the peoples feelings of oppression, and it is this sense of oppression that may lead to further conflicts (chaos) between a people and their prince.   
		One could argue that rule by non virtuous conduct (cruelty) lacks morality and in lacking this quality, the rule itself is inauspicious. Machiavelli felt that for state craft to be practiced successfully, conventional morality had to be set aside. Within the pages of The Prince, morality held no position in the political arena for it served no political ends and history seemed to prove this. Machiavelli believed that the progRams and steps out lined in The Prince, were necessary prerequisites to a successful principality. By analysis of political powers that existed within Machiavelli's past and present, he was able to determine, from historical examples, qualities that had previously preserved states and those that had damaging effects to them. The greatest ability was the ability to adapt. To utilize ones qualities to over power and control any situation.    
		Though philosophers of the past have written of ideal states or ideal princes, each of these examples had been founded upon an imaginary conceptualization of a utopia or its ruler. Machiavelli recognized, that should a ruler strive for an ideal conceptualization and ignore the concrete reality of his own existence, he would only be pursuing his own downfall rather than his presenation. It is this act of ignoring the ideal to confront the real, regardless of the means, that demonstrates Machiavelli's 
self defined justification in committing unjust acts to attain a just end.                 
		It is determined in The Republic, that justice witliin the state is an internal harmony derived from each individual within three classes, each performing its natural abilities in their employment or duties. Should the actions of one within the state produce friction upon another, that harmony is polluted and there is no justice where there is no harmoriy. Essentially in Plato's republic, justice is the sum of its parts. For justice to exist within a state, it must first exist within those individuals who make up the state. Once the virtues within men are in harmony, only then can relations between men and their classes be in harmony. The product of this harmony is justice within individuals themselves, which creates justice within the state    
		Regarding again the issue of whether a ruler may be justified in taking unjust measures to achieve just goals, we must determine not only the function but now also the nature of the ruling class in Plato's republic. According to Plato each person must perform his or her natural ability. The're are those who are predisposed to be rulers, those to be guardians and those to be common workers. The rulers are chosen after a series of tests that prove it is their nature to rule and must spend their lives accordingly.
		These rulers will be philosophers for only philosophers may understand the true essence of justice, so only a philosopher can administer justice and determine what actions are in the true benefit of the people. Plato feels philosophers are the only worthy candidates for leadership because it is a philosopher's nature to seek truth and knowledge for the sake of truth and knowledge. . . not for the sake of gain. Should an individual seek truth and knowledge for any personal gain, they are not true philosophers and are unworthy of being rulers of society. Socrates claims that a true philosopher is always honest, upright and a lover of truth and wisdom. A philosopher king cannot love truth and goodness yet rule by cruelty and lies. To do this would contradict the nature of the true philosopher making harmony (iustice) within him impossible. Once again, Plato believes that harmony within a state is derived from harmony within those who make up the state. Should any individual within this state be lacking in the quality of harmony the state also will lack this quality.    
		A ruler, whose duty is to administer justice by preserving harmony within the community, can in no way be justified at taking unjust measures to achieve a just goal. If a true philosopher knows that true justice is the product of virtues in harmony, then a true philosopher can not utilize any means that would create an imbalance within the natural order of those virtues. If Plato believes, as he claims to, that a true philosopher king must always pursue goodness, truth and wisdom and administer justice accordingly, then a true philosopher king cannot utilize cruelty, deceit or ignorance within his ruling. . . To do so would contradict his nature, which would contradict his duty, which would contradict the possibility of justice within in his state. . . Or any other.     
		But though the above argument is taken directly; from excerpts of Socrates' dialogues, Plato tends to promote ideas and practices that prove that he felt much differently and sometimes seemed to make statements that clearly negate his original ideas.    
		Plato believed that a philosopher king could only preserve and administer justice by balancing the virtues within himself. He also repeatedly emphasizes that justice within man himself is a natural order of reason prevailing above emotion, which in turn prevails above desire. Injustice occurs when this natural order is dis turbed. In Book IV of The Republic Socrates addresses the issue of the whole and its parts by claiming that something cannot be and not be at the same time, even though at times it may seem to be so, giving as an example a man standing in place swinging his arms. Where the man could be seen as being in motion and at rest at the, same time, the truth is that part of the man is in motion while part of him is at rest. Justice, like a man, is made up of several parts. Only based upon Plato's arguments, that he claims to believe, unlike man, the parts that compile justice are unable to act in opposite ways at once. Should these elements oppose each other instead of submit to the natural order, it would create an imbalance, eliminating the possibiliq of harmony,.which would eliminate the possibiliq of justice. Though man can be in motion and at rest simultaneously, justice cannot be present and absent at the same time.     
		Essentially this supports the claim that in Plato's republic, a ruler could never be justified in taking unjust measures to gain a just goal, for the unjust measure nullifies the justice in the goal, making justice impossible. To nullify justice is to nullify the nature of the ruler, this decomposition of justice only introduces chaos into the state that will in turn reproduce and infect all parts of the state. This infection will return civilization to a state of animal survival where human lives, lacking civilization, will loose the capacity of reason and resort to primal instinct for survival. 
   According to the above mentioned scenario, Plato MUST believe there can be no greater crime than for a ruler (philosopher king) to take advantage of, lie to or misguide those whom he rules for ANY reason. Yet, he seems eager to take advantage of, lie to and misguide his subjects for the good of the state.    
		In Book III of The Republic Socrates claims the state must be divided into three groups, which, to ensure justice, must not interfere with each other's business, which would create strife. Socrates claims that to keep discord at a minimum and preserve stability within the community, all citizens, including the rulers must be led to believe a great and royal lie. This lie would be in the form of a myth claiming all men are brothers of the earth, made from the same stock, only to serve a specific purpose on earth and not interfere or oppose other individuals or classes, for this will oppose the will of the gods. In this example, Plato is willing to misguide the citizens, and the ruler, with a myth he himself calls a lie, to preserve order among the people and their classes. Based upon Plato's own conception and definition of justice. . . IS THIS JUST? 
   In Book V, Socrates emphasizes the need for ruler to implement a eugenic regiment to ensure the future good of the populations health and being. Above all, selective breeding will be practiced to guarantee that the "breed of the guardians is to be kept pure." Socrates, recognizing that the masses will not tolerate controlled selective breeding, offers again a lie to solve the problem claiming that the masses will be led to believe that sexal partners willbe chosen by lot, deeming their mate, to their knowledge, a matter of chance. Not only will the philosopher king, again, lie to his subjects, he will do so not only to preserve the good of the state but to also preserve the purity of his own class. If a true philosopher king must, by nature, strive for and administer truth and justice for only the sake of truth and justice, is the above mentioned philosopher king, who administers a false truth for the sake of his own class and not justice. . . , a true philosopher king?  
		I feel Plato would like the reader of The Republic to believe that there can, by his own arguments, be no justification in pursuing just goals through unjust means. But I also feel these are obvious examples that Plato, like Machiavelli, recognized that concrete reality dominates the conceptualized ideal of justice, making it necessary to stray from the virtues that supposedly comprise justice, to establish and protect that justice within the community.