Machiavelli vs. Thoreau

Compare and Contrast Machiavelli and Thoreau.

Niccolo Machiavelli, an Italian philosopher who was best known for his work The Prince published in 1532; and a philosopher by the name of Henry David Thoreau—known for his Civil Disobedience—were not only philosophers, but incredibly influential people in their time as well as for modern day. Machiavelli emphasizes the importance of being in control and maintaining the stature a Prince has, while Thoreau believes in taking action against what we feel is unjust. However, even though the two philosophies may seem different, they also share similarities with each other.

                However, apart from their similarities, their philosophies also have differences.  Machiavelli believes in instilling fear in his subjects and being at powerful position, while Thoreau believes in nonviolent ways to take action against the government. Machiavelli says that “because men more quickly forget the death of their father than the loss of their patrimony,” it’s better to be a feared leader rather than a loved one. While Thoreau believes that the government should not be unjust towards its people and what may seem as injustice should be taken action against.  Thoreau thinks of government as “the machinery of society,” and sees the legislators as ones who “contemplate no essential reform[s] in the existing government.” However, Machiavelli has a different thought in mind because he believes that for a Prince to stay in authority and have control over the people, he must “not diverge from the good…but, if compelled then to know how to set about it.” Being so, Machiavelli and Thoreau don’t agree with each other on the level of authority and rules because of Thoreau’s standing up to the government belief, and Machiavelli’s it’s better to be feared than loved theory.

                Machiavelli and Thoreau’s philosophies go hand in hand because ultimately they are both agreeing that the morality of any action is founded only on the results of that action, rather than being founded on the action itself; if someone like a serial killer was punished, it would be justified since it is for the good of the people.  Machiavelli believes that it is better to be fear than loved by your subjects because “love is preserved by the link of obligation which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage; but fear preserves you by a dread punishment which never fails.” Similarly, Thoreau –even though he does not instill fear in his readers—accesses his position in a rebellious manner by influencing the people’s emotions by creating a need to take action against the government, rather than waiting around and  “voting for [something] right, [which] is [like] doing nothing for it.”  However, in a way both philosophers ideas relate back to each other; Thoreau and Machiavelli are both implicitly stating that the consequence of an action is what people should be concerned with, instead of just the action itself. Thoreau talks about the government as a machine, and how people should “consider whether the remedy [to stop the machine] will not be worse than the evil; but if it is of such a nature that requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then I say, break the law.” Thoreau, backs up Machiavelli’s famous statement, “the end justifies the mean” by saying that if you believe in something to be a successful action, and then do it, but don’t do it for the heck of doing it, rather an individual should break the law to cause a change to occur.

                Therefore, not only do Machiavelli and Thoreau share differential ideologies, but they also share similarities in their philosophies as well. This of course, is why Machiavelli and Thoreau have been successful in their philosophies, even in modern times.