p.p1 as one person holds the power

p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; color: #000000; -webkit-text-stroke: #000000}
p.p2 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; color: #000000; -webkit-text-stroke: #000000; min-height: 14.0px}
span.s1 {font-kerning: none}

 As long as one person holds the power in the society, all the rest will serve only to obey; and therefore the Prince will rule successfully. 

Whereas, the society More created is one of communism and could even be called a democracy. The leaders are elected by the people, and all decisions reached by the government support the best interests of the society as a whole; once again, the well-being of a society’s  people is a pillar to the leadership, not money or commodities of any sort. A fundamental example of this in Utopia is that citizens do not own or obtain any private property. This is achieved because everything on the island of Utopia is extremely uniform. “There are fifty-four splendid big towns on the island, all with the same language, laws, customs, and institutions. They’re all built on the same plan, and so far as the sites will allow, they all look exactly alike” (More 50). Clearly, More’s Utopia holds a tremendous respect for equality.

In essence, these two 16th century literary works reflect the authors’ contrasting views of human nature. Through The Prince, Machiavelli suggests to his readers how to deal with human nature, whereas More creates the conceptual world of Utopia in an attempt to portray the better aspects of human nature. More believed human nature to be inherently good, however he was not blind to the imperfections of the human being, he simply associated them with the external environment. Through Utopia, More shows that if the social, political, and economic conditions are shifted, then humans have the opportunity to nurture their attributes and, in turn, better their behavior. He demonstrates this most drastically by eliminating private property in the utopian society, stating: “as long as there is any property, and while money is the standard of all things, I cannot think a nation can be governed either justly or happily” (More 42). More, seemingly, believed in his utopia and improvement of human nature by way of manipulating circumstances. 

On the other hand, Machiavelli presents human nature to be largely self centered. He has a general distrust towards citizens, stating that in times of prosperity they can be trustworthy but in times of hardship, they quickly turn selfish and dishonest. He advises a prince: “men are wretched creatures who would not keep their word to you, you need not keep your word to them” (Machiavelli 57). It is detailed in The Prince how to manipulate one’s thought in order to place oneself in a position of control, and in doing so, Machiavelli provides a guide to manage the nature of human beings in order to benefit the state. 

Although the views of the authors differ dramatically, they both use imaginative thinking in rethinking values and systems of civilization during the 16th century, and reflect such outlooks in The Prince and in Utopia. Machiavelli suggests a Prince must exercise authority over its people to ensure they are dependent on him, while More uses respect for equality and human rights to create bliss within a society. Both writers explore modern social, political, and economic problems, from entirely different directions. These literary works represent the two polar solutions to these problems: the pragmatic approach of a realist versus the conceptual approach of an idealist. 


I'm Mary!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out