Name

Instructor
Course
Date
How Politics should be conducted: Machiavelli vs. Immanuel Kant
Throughout the history of humankind there were differing points of how politics should
be conducted, who should be a legitimate leader and how should he act. Political science
appeared only in the end of nineteenth century, but there is a long rank of thoughts, ideas and
principles formed by influential philosophers and thinkers. These controversial versions are often
the subject of comparison, so it would be very important to compare ideas of Immanuel Kant and
Niccolo Machiavelli.
Before giving the information about these two thinkers, it is very important for us to
focus on the main ideas of the periods of their activities. The religion and the power of Pope
were the core of medieval philosophy. When Niccolo Machiavelli was born, there was an idea
that any legitimate power is a result of inheritance or of the Gods will. The politics, as an action,
was a process of looking for the most moral and right way to conduct power.
Nevertheless, in fifteenth and sixteenth centuries the world changed dramatically. This
political disorder found expression in The Prince by Machiavelli . In the absence of any guiding
principle, politics becomes a naked struggle for power; The Prince gives shrewd advice as to
how to play this game successfully. (Russell)
Ideas of Machiavelli contributed to the philosophy, history and political thought of the
period. He never considered himself as a philosopher, because he did not write anything

concerning academic writing. His works were really unsystematic and self-contradictory. Many
philosophers who worked after the period of his life tended to appeal to his thoughts rather than
argue with it. (Nederman)
The most distinguishing feature of his view on politics was that he did not want to put up
with the idea, that morality was the main decision-making factor in governing. In his well-known
treatise The Prince, Machiavelli criticized the moralistic view on authority. In this vein,
Machiavelli said that the only concern of political ruler is the acquisition of power and a process
of keeping it.
As a thinker, he tried to define the best ways of political power. Machiavelli said that it
was important for any ruler to know how to use power. In his treatise The Prince, he tried to
communicate avenues through which it would be possible for any political leader to maintain a
political power. He thought that it was very important to take actions, through which political
rivals would step down and weak member of society would back a new leader. And let it here
be noted that men are either to be kindly treated, or utterly crushed, since they can revenge
lighter injuries, but not graver, he wrote in his treatise. (Machiavelli)
The main idea of Machiavellis ideas was that a core of any political power is a military
power or coercion. He insists on idea that good laws and good arms constitute the basis of
ordered political system. Authority is impossible for him if it without enforcement. He concludes
that fear is always important to influence subject, just as violence and coercion are superior to
legality in effectively controlling the society. (Nederman)
Machiavelli introduces the term Virt and Fortune, as important qualities for each
political leader. We are to translate Virt in English not only as virtue, but also as something

very different from moral goodness. He considers the prince of the highest virt as a one who is
capable to behave in completely evil fashion, if situation requires. He uses this term in order to
describe strategic skill to adapt to different war conditions; Machiavelli sees politics as a kind of
battlefield. The term Fortune, he considers in combination with a trait Virt given to very little
number of political figures. Fortuna is the enemy of political order, threat to safety and security
of the state. It is better to be adventurous than cautious, because fortune is a woman, wrote
Machiavelli. She allows herself to be mastered by the adventurous rather than by those who go
to work more coldly. This is what Virt provides: the ability to respond to fortune at any time
and in any way. (Machiavelli)
Immanuel Kant is a person of another time. He is much closer to us, so that we can
understand his ideas and see them implemented into real life. He is a philosopher of the
Enlightenment. He found a new path, which led to the end of classical philosophy and instituted
a new way of thinking and understanding the world. Kant was working in a more practical way,
so that his ideas could be implemented in reality. The core of his practical philosophy was his
political philosophy. He had very diverse ideas on society, law, state, freedom and peace.

He focuses on free individual choice entails that any beneficent action that interferes with
the recipients free choice is wrong. He also offers direct contrasts between right and virtue, right
is our outer freedom, and virtue is our inner freedom. There is only one innate right, says
Kant. He writes that a government cannot legitimately impose any conception of happiness upon
people. The happiness is not specific enough to entail any common desires in human beings. No
conception of happiness can be the basis of the principle of the state. On the contrary, he says
that if happiness is not universal, the freedom is universal and it can be implemented in law of

each country. State is not an impediment to freedom but is the main mean of freedom, the
protection of it. (Rauscher )
Kant also supports an equality. Each member of the state is equal to every other member.
There should be an equality of opportunity: each office must be open for everyone, with only
regard of ones merit. This idea is a core of future ideas of democracy. (Rauscher) He also was
the first to think about international law. (Kant and Meiklejohn) All the peaceful agreements are
to be adopted if they will not lead to another war.
Immanuel Kant also has a concept of perpetual peace. Kant is not pessimist enough to
believe that it is an unrealizable dream, nor is the optimist enough to fancy that it is an idea,
which could easily be realized if men would turn their hearts to one another. Nevertheless, to
enforce this idea, this rights and freedoms is impossible while the nations remain independent,
because each of them will seek different kind of happiness. (Kant)
Kant and Machiavelli considered themselves as persons capable of giving practical
advices in political life. The former was reaching this position through his theoretical ideas; the
latter participated actively in political life. They were living in different ages so that they had
different view on reality. Machiavelli was called as an apostle of the Devil, because he was the
first to describe the reality of political life. (Nederman)
When Kant is a proponent of international documents, Machiavelli says that it is an
empty word and the Prince should conduct politics by other means. Kant based his ideas on
the thought that everyone in the world tries to seek peace and peaceful resolutions of conflicts.
On the contrary, Machiavelli says that the war and conflicts are the nature of humanity.

The main advice for the prince was that each governor should seek to influent and
suppress any rivals. The Prince should avoid the strength of any political leader in other
countries, not to let him rule on his the territory of his influence. Kant criticized such opinion. He
was the proponent of the politics when leaders do not interfere in other countries.
Kant considers the war as very undesirable mean of international relations, but he adds
that it is impossible for any country to coexist with others without a war. He says that there is no
right and wrong, each participant has its own reasons to take this action. Machiavelli considers
the war and forces necessary for it as the best mean of maintaining the law and order in the
country. (Machiavelli)
Kant and Machiavelli are very different thinkers from different ages. We should
understand that Kant does not create Utopia. He understands that the most of his ideas are far
from reality, but they are possible to reach if people seek to acquire a pure reason and a sense of
common humanity. (Kant & Meiklejohn) Their view on politics differs, one seeks for a peace
and freedom other explains politics as a mean of coercion. It is important for us to know, that
every of them showed his view on reality in different age, in different state and in different
circumstances. We should take into consideration ideas of every philosopher to build for us and
for our next generation the bright and peaceful future.

Works cited
Kant, Immanuel, and J. M. D. Meiklejohn. The Critique of Pure Reason. Raleigh, N.C.: Alex
Catalogue. Print. Machiavelli, Niccolo, and W. K. Marriott. The Prince. Waiheke Island:
Floating, 2008. Print. Machiavelli, Niccolo. Art of War. Chicago: U of Chicago, 2003. Print.
Kant, Immanuel, and Ted Humphrey. Perpetual Peace, and Other Essays on Politics, History, and
Morals. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub., 1983. Print
Nederman, Cary. "Niccol Machiavelli." Stanford University. Stanford University, 13 Sept.
2005. Web. 5 Dec. 2015.
Rauscher, Frederick. "Kant's Social and Political Philosophy." Stanford University. Stanford
University, 24 July 2007. Web. 5 Dec. 2015.
Russel, Bertrand. A HISTORY OF WESTERN PHILOSOPHY And Its Connection with Political
and Social Circumstances from the Earliest Times to the Present Day. NEW YORK, 1945. 995.
Print.