This study will compare the views of Niccolo Machiavelli and Thomas More on human nature. More in Utopia and Machiavelli in The Prince present views which stand in stark contrast to one another, emphasizing More's generally more positive view and Machiavelli's decidedly more negative view.
Unlike the cynical Machiavelli, More believed human nature to be good, created by God, and susceptible to great improvement if social, political, and economic conditions were reformed so that human misery were eliminated and that fundamental human virtue were thereby liberated and nurtured. More believed in socialism insofar as it would eliminate private property, which he saw as the root of evil. He believed that when private property exists, and when money dominates all other considerations, then "it is hardly ever possible for a commonwealth to be governed justly or happily." More believes that justice simply cannot exist when the "worst citizens" own the "best things," or "where property is limited to a few." In such a situation, those who have so much are "always uneasy," fearing they will have it taken, and those who have so little "are utterly wretched" (More 38). Where there is no justice, people will believe that there is no reward for virtue, which will result in people behaving according to their lowest standards, rather than according to their highest.
Although More's views reflect a generally positive view of human nature, he is too wise to believe that human beings are likely not perfectible in this world. However, for the practice of the virtue he advocates, he must believe that human beings, while flawed, are capable of virtuous behavior if social conditions encourage such behavior.
Machiavelli, on the other hand, argues that the prince should behave as ruthlessly as necessary to gain and maintain power in a world in which Machiavelli believes human nature to be so selfishly ruthless and without virtue. "Virtue...