Last updated: August 11, 2019
Topic: BusinessAgriculture
Sample donated:

Utopia By Thomas More Essay, Research Paper

****Writer & # 8217 ; s note: This paper dissects Thomas More & # 8217 ; s Utopia and Niccolo Machiavelli & # 8217 ; s The Prince in an attempt to detect their positions on Human nature & # 8212 ; This paper can easy be transformed from this topic******

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

Niccolo Machiavelli vs. Thomas More: Defining Human Nature

It is hard to find Niccolo Machiavelli & # 8217 ; s and Thomas More & # 8217 ; s view on homo & # 8217 ; s nature. Each took a different attack to the subject. Through Utopia, Thomas More attempted to alter adult male & # 8217 ; s thought by making an ideological society. Niccolo Machiavelli, through The Prince, attempted to learn adult male how to cover with human nature. With this in head, Machiavelli & # 8217 ; s concept is much more realistic than More & # 8217 ; s ; hence Machiavelli better represents human nature.

Machiavelli & # 8217 ; s position of human nature in The Prince, nowadayss, on the surface, a position of regulating a province drastically different for his clip. Machaivelli believed that the opinion Prince should be the exclusive authorization finding every facet of the province and set into consequence a policy which would function his best involvements. With this, Machiavelli uses the prince as adult male, and the province as the adult male & # 8217 ; s life. These involvements were deriving, keeping, and spread outing his political power. Though in some instances Machiavelli may look harsh and immoral, one must retrieve that his positions were derived from concern of Italy & # 8217 ; s unstable political status in the 1500s. Machiavelli seems to be learning the common adult male how to populate his life so that their life is good and comfortable.

Machiavelli by and large distrusted citizens, saying that & # 8220 ; & # 8230 ; since work forces are a regretful batch and will non maintain their promises to you, you likewise need non maintain yours to them & # 8221 ; ( Machiavelli

651 ) . Furthermore, & # 8220 ; a prince ne’er lacks legitimate grounds to interrupt his promises & # 8221 ; when, & # 8220 ; such an observation of religion would be to his disadvantage ; and when the grounds which made him promise are removed & # 8221 ; ( 651 ) .

Machiavelli did non experience that a Prince should maltreat the citizens. This suggestion one time once more to function the Prince & # 8217 ; s best involvements. If a Prince can non be both feared and loved, Machiavelli suggests, it would be better for him to be feared by the citizens within his ain tenet. He makes the generalisation that work forces are, & # 8220 ; & # 8230 ; thankless, volatile, simulators and cheats, avoiders of danger, greedy for addition ; and while you work for their good they are yours & # 8221 ; ( 649 ) . He characterizes work forces as being egoistic and non willing to move in the best involvement of the province, & # 8221 ; and when it ( danger ) comes nearer to you they turn off & # 8221 ; ( 649 ) . Machiavelli reinforces the Prince & # 8217 ; s need to be feared by saying: & # 8220 ; & # 8230 ; work forces are less hesitating about harming person who makes himself loved than one who makes himself feared & # 8230 ; & # 8221 ; ( 649 ) . The bond of love is one which work forces, the wretched animals they are, break when it is to their advantage to make so ; & # 8220 ; & # 8230 ; fright is held together by a apprehension of penalty which will ne’er abandon you & # 8221 ; ( 649 ) . Machiavelli suggests that the key to being a good & # 8220 ; prince, & # 8221 ; is misrepresentation. & # 8220 ; It is necessary to cognize how to mask this nature good and to be a great dissembler and a prevaricator: and work forces are so simple-minded and so controlled by their present necessities that one who deceives will ever happen another who will let himself to be deceived & # 8221 ; ( 651 ) . Machiavelli states that work forces judge more, & # 8221 ; with their eyes than with their hands. & # 8221 ; And with this Machiavelli claims that, & # 8220 ; everyone sees what you seem to be, few people perceive what you are, & # 8221 ; ( 652 ) and those who do recognize what the Prince is, dare non state, for the Prince has the power of the multitudes to protect him.

Machiavelli, in a sense, describes how to populate, successfully and prosperously, by covering

with the human & # 8217 ; s nature. He inside informations how one is to pull strings another & # 8217 ; s thought, in order to put oneself in a more respectable place. With this, Machiavelli pronounces human nature to be really inhuman, lead oning, egoistic, and most of all temperamental.

Thomas More, in Utopia, tried to show that the lone manner for a better life was through alteration. More & # 8217 ; s cardinal ailments of human nature were greed, power, and pride. More, apparently, imagined a society, in which these three things no longer existed, believing that they were adult male & # 8217 ; s ruin.

The chief idea that he attempted to transfuse in the heads of the Tocopherol

nglish was this: Take a suffering enchantment of black crops, when many of thousand of work forces have passed on in hungriness. If at the terminal of this dearth the barns of the rich were searched, certainly adequate commissariats would be found in them to hold saved the lives of those who died from famishment and disease, if it had been rationed every bit among them. Thus, the agony of a bad crop was unneeded. So easy might work forces acquire the necessities of life if that cursed money, which is supposed to supply entree to them were non in fact the main barrier to our acquiring what we need to populate. With this, More described greed.

At first glimpse, Thomas More & # 8217 ; s Utopia appears as a socialist, communist society ; nevertheless, if Utopia is a truly socialist province, so one can see that subjugation is ineluctable. It is clear that More attempted to make an classless society to break the people as a whole, and non separately. His descriptions of the establishments of Utopia ( i.e. , A twenty-four hours in Utopia, The family, Utopian Beliefs, and Treatment of the deceasing ) was precise and so good formatted that it is hard to see any defects, without peering profoundly into his words.

More lineations an Utopian twenty-four hours as & # 8220 ; & # 8230 ; a six-hour working twenty-four hours & # 8212 ; three hours in the forenoon,

so tiffin & # 8212 ; so a two-hour interruption & # 8212 ; so three more hours in the afternoon, followed by supper & # 8221 ; ( More 633 ) . Each citizen in the society has an equal sum of duty. Each performs the same undertaking, agriculture, and each has his/her ain forte ( i.e. , woodworking, blacksmith, etc. ) With this he strips off pride. How can one adult male be proud if there are so many others perform the same undertaking as he? He goes on to state, & # 8220 ; after supper they have an hr & # 8217 ; s diversion, either in the gardens or the communal dining halls, harmonizing to the clip of twelvemonth & # 8221 ; ( 633 ) . More sets the sleeping clip, about as a jurisprudence, taking into history the society instead than the person.

More, merely as anyone, was a slave to the society in which he lived. His position on the English society, in which he resided, was one of subjugation, being ruled by a higher authorization. More attempted to make a society in which subjugation did non be ; nevertheless, subjugation did be with the usage of a Styward. A Styward & # 8217 ; s merely occupation was & # 8220 ; & # 8230 ; to see that cipher sits around making nil, but that everyone gets on with his occupation & # 8221 ; ( 632 ) . It is rather contradictory that More intended to wipe out power when he places the Styward with power. Increasingly contradictory is that More provinces that adult females are the & # 8220 ; & # 8230 ; weaker sex & # 8230 ; & # 8221 ; ( 632 ) and & # 8220 ; & # 8230 ; are given the igniter occupations & # 8221 ; ( 632 ) . More goes on to province that & # 8220 ; & # 8230 ; married womans are low-level to their hubbies & # 8230 ; & # 8221 ; ( 634 ) . Not merely does this express More & # 8217 ; s ain bondage to his society but does this non transfuse more power in the work forces?

Thomas More unsuccessfully, and optimistically, describes human nature. He seems to believe that adult male is a creative activity of his regulating authorization ; and that if the regulating power is to be removed so adult male would be a less hostile force. He depicts that adult male by nature is good-willed and conforming. He forgets that adult male is an animate being in the universe, competition runs fierce. When it

comes down to it, one adult male will catch the other to better himself ; and with this there will

ever be a regulating power. Niccolo Machiavelli, on the other manus, triumphantly describes

human nature. He depicts adult male in a signifier, though pessimistic, truer to world. Machiavelli suggests that adult male will ne’er alter and that one will ever try to get the better of the other. He portrays adult male as an untrusty, thankless, greedy, and lying batch. Machiavelli admits the unchangeable mistakes of adult male in a manner that stuns the reader, unlike More.

Plants Cited

Machiavelli, Niccolo. & # 8220 ; The Prince. & # 8221 ; Current Issues & A ; Enduring Questions. Ed. Sylvan and Hugo

Bedau. Boston: Bedford/St.Martin & # 8217 ; s, 1999. 646-52.

More, Thomas. & # 8220 ; Utopia. & # 8221 ; Current Issues & A ; Enduring Questions. Ed. Sylvan and Hugo Bedau.

Boston: Bedford/St.Martin & # 8217 ; s, 1999. 632-44.

Machiavelli, Niccolo. & # 8220 ; The Prince. & # 8221 ; Current Issues & A ; Enduring Questions. Ed. Sylvan and Hugo

Bedau. Boston: Bedford/St.Martin & # 8217 ; s, 1999. 646-52.

More, Thomas. & # 8220 ; Utopia. & # 8221 ; Current Issues & A ; Enduring Questions. Ed. Sylvan and Hugo Bedau.

Boston: Bedford/St.Martin & # 8217 ; s, 1999. 632-44.