A Compare and Contrast of Thomas Moores Utopia and Machiavelli?s The Pr

Just vs. ViableTo be just is to be fair and honorable. Kids are taught that if you are kind and just you pull up stakes excel and be successful. But lifes not fair and being just doesnt necessary mean that a society pass on stand the test of time and be able to grow. The two different societies introduced in such(prenominal)s Utopia and Machiavellis The Prince are precise different and although Mores Utopian society would be considered more just then Machiavellis society. Machiavellis society is more realistic and more likely to be viable. Leadership is a major issue when it comes to whether or not a society is going to be viable. It seems that if the loss draw is a good leader, a leader that puts his people first and wants the best for his country, then the land and the society should flourish. But if the leader is a bad leader, a power driven leader, a leader who puts himself first, and lets his people starve while he and his nobles live in excess, then the society and land will not flourish. This idea is not demonstrated to us in Utopia or The Prince it seems like the exact opposite. Utopia has a more democratic government. Each set of households elects someone and then those elects elect others, and although there is a prince they unagitated hasten the power to throw him out of office if hes involved in any wrong doing. And although their prince doesnt have as much power as a prince in Machiavellis writing the prince in Utopia serves a different purpose. The prince in Utopia is there to provide stableness. With the syphogrants and tranibors changing annually the stability of a constant figure head is needed. More describes the government as followsOnce a year, every group of thirty households elects an official,Formerly called the syphogrant, but promptly called the phylarch. OverEvery group of ten syphogrants with their households there is another official, once called the tranibor but now known as the head phylarch. All the syphogrants, two hu ndred in number, are brought together to elect the prince. They take an oath to choose the man they think best qualified and then by secret ballot they elect they prince from among four men nominated by the people of the four sections of the city. The prince holds office for life, unless he is suspected of aiming at a t... ...s. But this society was in no way more just then the Utopian society, although this society was more viable. They had what it took to last, to grow and to flourish. Both societies have there good points and both societies have their flaws. More imagined a new society, even though it still carried some remnants of the one he knew. And the Utopian society looked great on paper they were very just and honorable people. But when examined in depth it falls apart. This society wouldnt last people dont think that way. Machiavelli criticized and critiqued history, he took things he knew and said how they could be made better for future societies. Except societies and societal ideas evolve, ideas that worked then dont always work now. His society was based on backstabbing and deceitfulness, appearing virtuous but not actually being virtuous. So although his society would have lasted, it was far from just. But this is the opinion looking back at these texts. When these texts were written More and Machiavelli both thought these were the ideal societies. But if More and Machiavelli knew what people know now would their societal ideas still be what they were?