Utopia And Prince
The Prince in an effort to discover their views on Human nature---This paper can
easily be transformed from this topic. Niccolo Machiavelli vs. Thomas More :

Defining Human Nature It is difficult to determine Niccolo Machiavelliís and

Thomas Moreís view on humanís nature. Each took a different approach to the
topic. Through Utopia, Thomas More attempted to change manís thinking by
creating an ideological society. Niccolo Machiavelli, through The Prince,
attempted to teach man how to deal with human nature. With this in mind,

Machiavelliís concept is much more realistic than Moreís; therefore

Machiavelli better represents human nature. Machiavelliís view of human nature
in The Prince, presents, on the surface, a view of governing a state drastically
different for his time. Machaivelli believed that the ruling Prince should be
the sole authority determining every aspect of the state and put into effect a
policy which would serve his best interests. With this, Machiavelli uses the
prince as man, and the state as the manís life. These interests were gaining,
maintaining, and expanding his political power. Though in some cases Machiavelli
may seem harsh and immoral, one must remember that his views were derived from
concern of Italyís unstable political condition in the 1500s. Machiavelli
seems to be teaching the common man how to live his life so that their life is
good and prosperous. Machiavelli generally distrusted citizens, stating that

"...since men are a sorry lot and will not keep their promises to you, you
likewise need not keep yours to them" (Machiavelli 651). Furthermore, " a
prince never lacks legitimate reasons to break his promises" when, "such an
observance of faith would be to his disadvantage; and when the reasons which
made him promise are removed" (651). Machiavelli did not feel that a Prince
should mistreat the citizens. This suggestion once again to serve the Princeís
best interests. If a Prince can not be both feared and loved, Machiavelli
suggests, it would be better for him to be feared by the citizens within his own
dogma. He makes the generalization that men are, "... ungrateful, fickle,
simulators and deceivers, avoiders of danger, greedy for gain; and while you
work for their good they are yours" (649). He characterizes men as being
self-centered and not willing to act in the best interest of the state," and
when it (danger) comes nearer to you they turn away" (649). Machiavelli
reinforces the Princeís need to be feared by stating: "...men are less
hesitant about harming someone who makes himself loved than one who makes
himself feared..." (649). The bond of love is one which men, the wretched
creatures they are, break when it is to their advantage to do so; "... fear is
held together by a dread of punishment which will never abandon you"(649).

Machiavelli suggests that the key to being a good "prince," is deception.

"It is necessary to know how to disguise this nature well and to be a great
hypocrite and a liar: and men are so simple-minded and so controlled by their
present necessities that one who deceives will always find another who will
allow himself to be deceived" (651). Machiavelli states that men judge more,

"with their eyes than with their hands." And with this Machiavelli claims
that, "everyone sees what you seem to be, few people perceive what you are,"
(652) and those who do realize what the Prince is, dare not tell, for the Prince
has the power of the masses to protect him. Machiavelli, in a sense, describes
how to live, successfully and prosperously, by dealing with the humanís
nature. He details how one is to manipulate anotherís thought, in order to
place oneself in a more respectable position. With this, Machiavelli pronounces
human nature to be very cold-blooded, deceiving, self-centered, and most of all
temperamental. Thomas More, in Utopia, tried to express that the only way for a
better life was through change. Moreís key complaints of human nature were
greed, power, and pride. More, seemingly, imagined a society, in which these
three things no longer existed, believing that they were manís downfall. The
main thought that he attempted to instill in the minds of the English was this:

Take a miserable spell of disastrous harvests, when many of thousand of men have
passed on in hunger. If at the end of this famine the barns of the rich were
searched, surely enough provisions would be found in them to have saved the
lives of those who died from starvation and disease, if it had been rationed
equally among them. Thusly, the suffering of a bad harvest was