Emaad Akhtar

Social Foundations II
Prof. Curry
Essay I

Essay I – Would you prefer to live in More’s Utopia or in a state governed by Machiavelli’s
Prince? What do you see as the positives and negatives of each situation?

The Prince, composed by Niccolo Machiavelli, is ultimately a practical guide for

ruling, as simple as it sounds. Machiavelli’s dedication of the book to the Florentine ruler

Lorenzo de Medici is testament to his willingness to advocate a regime or system of

autocracy. Machiavelli establishes the fundamental approaches and modes for governing in a

principality – that is to say acquiring, maintaining, and protecting a state – and these

techniques include the likes of power as a political tool, military force, and a sense of popular

goodwill amongst the masses. Thomas More’s Utopia portrays the notion of an ideal, perfect

world which Raphael believes to be far superior to any in Europe. The Utopian society which

More proposes can be considered a predominantly conservative one; a nation where there

exists communal property, the absence of immoral behaviour, and religious tolerance among

other conventional concepts. After scrutinizing the positives and negatives of both More’s

Utopia and Machiavelli’s Prince, one will be able to make a decision on which one of the

societies is more favourable to live in.

In terms of governing a state, there are various positives that Machiavelli’s Prince

exudes that would convince one of living in such a state. Firstly, Machiavelli mentions his

willingness to establish a strong military, which demonstrates a positive and progressive

mentality, because it is one of the most powerful ways to defend a country’s sovereignty.

Every state requires a means through which they must organize themselves to attack or

defend, and in Machiavelli’s perspective, good arms are the very foundation upon which all

states are built; “The main foundations of every state, new states as well as ancient or

composite ones, are good laws and good arms (Machiavelli, 40).” For Machiavelli,
possessing an army means more than just utilizing military force; political, tactical, and

geographical strategies are also considered fundamental in his eyes. Furthermore,

Machiavelli condemns the employment of mercenaries or auxiliaries and rather advocates the

use of internal troops, a decision that would encourage one to live in his state. This is because

domestic troops have the pride and loyalty that a mercenary lacks; they are prepared to

sacrifice themselves for their country when it really matters. As Machiavelli appropriately

points out, a state dependent on mercenaries will never achieve success; “If a prince bases the

defence of his state on mercenaries he will never achieve stability or security. For

mercenaries are disunited, thirsty for power, undisciplined, and disloyal; they are brave

among their friends and cowards before the enemy (Machiavelli, 40).” Employing local

troops as opposed to foreign ones would also enhance domestic support for a ruler, and with

the full backing and trust of the masses, the ruler is bound to succeed. Futhermore,

Machiavelli’s notion of being feared rather than loved is one of the most significant of all his

ideas. According to Machiavelli, during times of hardship, people’s self-interests are stronger

than any sense of self-obligation towards their ruler. Hence, the threat and/or use of

punishment appears to be the principle way in which prince’s can guarantee the support and

obedience of the masses; “For love is secured by a bond of gratitude which men, wretched

creatures that they are, break when it is to their advantage to do so; but fear is strengthened

by a dread of punishment which is always effective (Machiavelli, 54).” Even in the

contemporary world, people adhere to laws not so much because they respect them or have a

moral obligation towards them, but because they fear punishment.

On the contrary, the negative aspects of Machiavelli’s Prince are definitely worth

mentioning and can discourage one from living in his perfect state. Machiavelli’s suggestion

of devastating a region as a means to securing power is hardly encouraging from an ethical

and moral standpoint; moreover, such a loss of tradition and custom can be detrimental for a

new ruler and his chances of gaining adequate support from the masses. Secondly,

Machiavelli suggests that princes should be able to break promises in order to obtain practical

advantages, and although he doesn’t explicitly mention that one should avoid performing a

good deed, it is an unethical practice; “princes who have achieved great things have been

those who have given their word lightly…and who, in the end, have overcome those abiding

by honest principles (Machiavelli, 56).” This roguish yet astute mentality towards gaining

power and success for a prince is highlights through Machiavelli’s allusion to the fox and

lion legend; “because the lion is defenceless against traps and a fox is defenceless against

wolves. Therefore one must be a fox in order to recognize traps, and a lion to frighten off

wolves (Machiavelli, 56-57).” He even goes as far as saying that a prince should ‘appear’

generous, religious, and faithful to his life, accentuating the notion of deceit and

untrustworthiness; “He should appear to be compassionate, faithful to his word, kind,

guileless, and devout…But his disposition should be such that, if he needs to be the opposite,

he knows how (Machiavelli, 57).”

Thomas More’s Utopia also consists of some positives that could influence one to live

in his ‘ideal’ society. One such advantage of More’s society is the rational educational

system, whereby everyone goes through a systemized scheme. The system is designed so that

children develop a cultural and moral learning habit in addition to engaging in intellectually

rigorous activities – a projected vision that each new breed of children will replenish the

Utopian society. Furthermore, the marriage customs proposed in this Utopian society seem to

stay within the boundaries of realism. Pre-marital sex is forbidden under all circumstances

and the culprits are punished duly. The reason for the ruthless punishment is that if people

were engaged in a life of immorality marriage would cease to exist in the first place; “few
people would join in married love – with confinement to a single partner, and all the petty

annoyances that married life involves – unless they were strictly restrained from a life of

promiscuity (More, 61).” The concept of confinement to a single partner is a good idea

because it guarantees loyalty and respect for one person; it prevents any engagement in

immoral or untoward actions between the man/woman involved in a marriage and other

men/women.

However, there are several negative aspects of Utopian society that are worth

mentioning that may prove to be a disincentive for many to live in such a society. First and

foremost, even though people are required to work, the notion of communal property seems

very impractical because people have no incentive to work as they would be feeding off the

labour of others. Hence it becomes forced work, which reduces the quality of goods as well

as the time taken to produce them. As Adam Smith famously advocated, one who lacks

private property will not have anything to work for. Simply put, the enforcement of

communal property is potentially detrimental to society; its presence eliminates all respect for

authority, ultimately increasing the chance of bloodshed and conflict. Moreover, the non-

market, communal economy that exists in the Utopian world seems like an unworkable

theory because there is simply no incentive to work and that productivity levels are likely to

be adequate but not exceptional. Although many will argue that needing more than enough is

not necessary, it is essential to note that having an abundance of supplies is a major solution

to help accommodate the problem of an ever-growing population. This is especially

important as producing more would accommodate the rapidly increasing population. Hence,

such theories would only exist on an idealistic as opposed to a realistic level. Another

downside to More’s Utopian society is the fact that everyone, men and women alike, are

required to work in the agricultural field. Besides farm work, each person is taught a
particular trade of his own, such as masonry, metal-work, or wool-making. The issue with

this is that no diversity is achieved through working in just one field, again cause for a

stagnant economy. People working are at the mercy of nature, and their incomes can fluctuate

depending on the weather. Moreover, employing numerous citizens in the primary industry of

agriculture does not allow a great deal of investment into scientific and technological

advancements. The Utopian perspective of warfare being a futile affair comes as a surprise

because it is generally considered to be the principle mode of defending ones state

successfully; “They despise war as an activity fit for only beasts…they think nothing so

inglorious as the glory won in battles (More, 66).” In addition, the decision to employ

auxiliaries and mercenaries, unlike in Machiavelli’s Prince, highlights and over-reliance on

foreigners; states would definitely desire to have their own troops fighting in their army if

need be, not mercenaries who have a tendency to possess disloyal, unfaithful qualities.

Moreover, although most of them fight if need be, some of the locals may feel they are being

ignored and considered inferior to mercenaries. As a result they may feel they are not trusted

to defend their country and will be inclined to lose faith in their leader.

Overall, after weighing out the positives and negatives of both living in a state

governed by Machiavelli’s Prince and More’s Utopia, the overwhelming evidence seems to

suggest that the benefits of the former are greater than those of the latter. Ultimately,

Machiavelli’s ideas, bolstered by strong historical evidence, prove to be achievable, as

opposed to a Utopian society that transcends the barrier of realism and exists purely on an

idealistic plane. Fundamentally, a moneyless, non-market economy is simply unworkable in

any society lest a Utopian one. Such a contrived theory could never conceivably become a

pragmatic one in both past and contemporary societies.