Machiavelli v. Aquinas in Compelling Arguments in Favor of Their Positions on the Art of War and the Rule of Law

Aristotle, often called the philosopher's philosopher, conceived of the human being as a political animal whose life was spent in large measure in the pursuit of rational action that was purposeful not only in terms of practical functions, but in terms of happiness (Solomon and Higgins, 64). This Aristotelian concept emphasizes virtue as a primary objective in all of human activities and considers humans as necessarily engaged in political activity as a direct consequence of living within organized social groups. This is a view that influenced both Niccolo Machiavelli and Thomas Aquinas. These two thinkers will be compared with respect to their understanding of the Aristotelian political animal and the purpose of the ruler in the state.

Machiavelli (73) argued that "the nature of man is such that people consider themselves put under an obligation as much by the benefits they confer as by those they receive." A ruler, in his view, was therefore required to confer benefits upon those he ruled while recognizing that he in turn received benefits from his position. Rulers "should have no other object or thought, nor acquire skill in anything, except war, its organization, and its discipline. The art of war is all that is expected of a ruler (Machiavelli, 87)." In pursuit of power, Machiavelli (90) argued that princes should observe social norms and mores while maintaining the power needed to respond to crises as they emerged or to capitalize upon opportunities to expa

Category: Philosophy - M