philosophy command according to plato term paper
Excerpt by Term Paper:
Unlike Plato, Machiavelli had a much less idealistic view of leadership in mind. or, rather, his view of command was not concerned about a personal watch of ethics and virtue. Plato naturally believed, in the end, that the best leader could be the wisest and the most moral. It was these qualities that needs to be encouraged and these features that would make said person a superior leader. Machiavelli contended implicitly that this was an erroneous understanding of human nature plus the characteristics that constitute superb leaders. At the heart of Machiavelli’s description in the perfect leader, his idealized prince, is a argument that personal advantage and values are totally unrelated to public accomplishment (Kemerling). Consequently, from this we see that the very good leader will never necessarily end up being the same as the positive individual. This kind of assertion stands in kampfstark contrast to Plato’s discussion about the nature of leadership and highlights the way in which leaders generally operate in real world scenarios, instead of the way we would like those to act.
Machiavelli based this argument around the quite easy assumption that no matter how virtuous or moral one head acts, there is no way to guarantee that all other leaders or involved people will follow the same high meaningful code (Kemerling). Following customized rules in politics, basically, puts the leader at a tremendous disadvantage when compared with his or her colleagues. To be a fantastic leader, in accordance to Machiavelli, one must understand when and how to the actual things desired and honest individuals may never consider doing. At times in order to accomplish the goals of world, the goals of the group, and also the goals individuals, it is necessary to execute acts that may be considered wrong or dishonest. It becomes essential that the head appear to be desired than to actually be doing this, so long as the best is completing the goals required of him or her. Contrary to Plato’s innovator who positioned virtue most importantly and tried it as a guide to lead others, Machiavelli’s leader is a shrewd manipulator in the situation at hand and will make unethical works if it signifies that those works will improve his or her charge of the politics situation looking at him. As the image of the Machiavellian leader is not idolized in our culture, it is hard to argue while using effectiveness with the leadership unit that Machiavelli proposes, no matter how ruthless we may perceive this to be.
Right after between Plato’s and Machiavelli’s models of command are striking and significant. The previous argues in favour of individual virtue as the guiding principle from the ethical leader who locations the requires of his followers prior to his own. The latter flat out argues that such an strategy misconstrues the nature of leadership as well as its uses in society; a single must instead maximize his or her own power at all times to be able to enhance the possibilities that the leader’s specific goals will be attained. This schism between two of the greatest philosopher in the great the Western world highlights our contradictory emotions about command and commanders: at once we wish effective leaders who will create results (such Machiavelli’s) but who are yet reveered paragons of virtue (such Plato’s).
Performs Cited
Kemerling, Garth. “Machiavelli: Principality and Republic. inches Philosophy Internet pages. 27 March. 2001. seventeen Nov. 2007 http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/3v.htm.
Korab-Karpowicz, W. M. “Plato’s Politics Philosophy. inches The Internet Encyclopedia of Viewpoint. Bilkent College or university. 2006. 18 Nov. 3 years ago http://www.iep.utm.edu/p/platopol.htm.
