POL200Y1 Visions of the Just/Good Society
Visions of the Just/Good Society
Hello, dear friend, you can consult us at any time if you have any questions, add WeChat: THEend8_
Political Theory: Visions of the Just/Good Society
POL200Y1
For Aristotle, war is supposed to be fought for the sake of peace. For Machiavelli,
by contrast, peace is for the sake of war. Which author is more persuasive and
why? Be sure to support your views with textual evidence.
Any philosophical investigation of the subject must take into consideration the
complexity that comes with both the nature and philosophy of war, which together
paint a more full image of the landscape and the underlying relationships that are
crucial to comprehending the nature of war. Issues tend to focus on more conventional
areas of political, moral, and philosophically of mind. To put it another way, exploring
the philosophical issues surrounding war requires extensive investigation and study.
Any serious philosophical study of war must examine the writings of Aristotle and
Machiavelli. One of the most well-known ancient Greek philosophers, the former laid
the path for succeeding authors with his contributions to military science. He believed
that war was necessary to bring about peace. Machiavelli, an Italian thinker of the
Renaissance, asserts that war is legitimate in order to thwart peace. While they differ
on the causes of violence, these two brilliant minds concur that it is an inescapable
element of human history. This research concludes that Aristotle's position is the more
convincing one after reviewing the two opposing points of view for the reasons listed
below.
First and foremost, according to Machiavelli, "peace is for the sake of conflict." In
light of this, he contends that the time of comparatively peace should be utilized to
prepare the military forces for the impending fight (Machiavelli & Wootton46). He
claims there are two methods that can do this. The first is via direct action, when a
commander organizes and prepares his soldiers before dispatching them on protracted
field exercises where they encounter difficulty and get familiar with the environment
(Machiavelli & Wootton 46). As a result, they have in-depth knowledge of their
country's geography, which gives them an advantage while putting up a defence. Also,
students will be better able to learn about the cultures of other nations if they are
familiar with and understand their own country. You can't undervalue the influence of
this military knowledge since it teaches leaders how to ambush their foes, choose the
best camping spots, and organize their forces during a battle. By developing these
skills during times of relative peace, the military may have a leg up on the enemy in
the case of a future battle.
Second, one could become well-educated to the point of being prepared for
everything, in accordance with Machiavelli. Here, Machiavelli makes the case that
reading history and studying the deeds of great men is crucial for effective war
preparation because it exposes how those people behaved in combat and the reasons
that contributed to their triumphs and failures (Machiavelli & Wootton 46). This
viewpoint is fascinating because it enables a leader to learn from the mistakes made
by their forebears, much as Alexander the Great did when he studied Achilles'
victories and losses. As a result, they not only improve their own leadership skills but
also those of their troops. Leaders are thus in a position where they are well versed
about previous history, lowering the possibility that they would repeat the mistakes
made by others in the past, rather than waiting for the war to start and entering it
unprepared.
Moreover, Machiavelli contends that "peace for the sake of battle" removes the evil of
helplessness and the detestable. Even in times of peace, a leader must be thinking
about war continually to avoid being despised even by armed subordinates. A
commander should take advantage of periods of relative quiet to discuss strategy with
his or her troops in the same manner that the prince of Achaea would do (Machiavelli
& Wootton 47). He gains their respect and establishes himself as someone they can
turn to for guidance or leadership in a crisis by being honest and often discussing
prospective dangers and outcomes in combat. The significance of Machiavelli's
argument for military leadership on the battlefield is that it emphasizes the need of
gaining the trust and respect of one's soldiers prior to engaging in combat. Before to
the start of the war, the commander must build his or her credibility with the soldiers
in order to increase the possibility that they will carry out his or her instructions. Yet,
if the leader waits until the start of the battle to stock up on weaponry, his men will
despise him and think less of him.
An extra benefit is that resources may be purposefully developed in order to be
available during times of conflict, when they may be utilized to resist if circumstances
change, as a result of Machiavelli's emphasis on the peacetime. Conflict, whether
internal or external, is, in Machiavelli's opinion, an inevitable and constant component
of human society as governments and people both endeavour to compete for
domination over the other (Machiavelli & Wootton 48). Building up the military's
capability to successfully repel an enemy invasion during times of peace is just as
crucial as preparing for the prospect of war. Given that winning a war involves
significant resources, this is a strong argument. The latter includes both people and the
tools needed to wage war. While preparing for war and defending national sovereignty
by enlisting and training soldiers, for instance, outstanding leadership is shown
(Machiavelli& Wootton 46). The same is true for the accessibility of equipment and
weaponry for both offence and defence. As a consequence, any commander who
wants to defeat his foe should adopt the tactic of using the time leading up to combat
to gather strength and be ready for war.
While considering the idea that "war should be waged for the sake of peace," Aristotle
goes farther than Machiavelli. As a result of this perspective, Aristotle treats war as
something that must be morally justified in his writings. If every battle must have a
valid rationale, then some must be fought for the wrong reasons. That's why harmony
and order in the "poleis" were so important to achieving with nature. Nonetheless,
Aristotle argues that justice and peace are more than mere accidents. Instead, they
need to be built by people in order to play a prominent role in the pursuit of virtue.
These qualities are what give human beings their inherent structure and stability.
Moreover, although Machiavelli seems to imply that war or military matters have
worth in and of themselves, Aristotle provides the exact opposite view. War, according
to Machiavelli, is essential for developing the kind of character in a leader that would
allow him to stay in power (Machiavelli & Wootton 46). To prevent the disdain of his
troops for being unprepared, Machiavelli, for example, advises commanders to equip
themselves well in advance of battle. Thus, they may inspire dread in their troops and
earn respect from those they command by achieving military preparedness. The core
of military readiness, therefore, is to foster an environment of toughness in order to
remain as a leader without being ousted. Aristotle, however, rejects such an outlook.
The latter group argues that war can only be acceptable if it serves to preserve or
found a just polis (1253a2). Creating a fair polis is essential to understanding
Aristotle's stance on war since it is the state that generates the circumstances that
inculcate virtues or orderliness in persons. As a result, Aristotle maintains that the
purpose of battle is not to instill fear in the enemy, particularly in the mind of the
commander. Instead, it prioritizes creating a fair polis, which is the greatest good
since it benefits everyone. This is because the manufactured environment encourages
human virtue.
Moreover, Aristotle states that the need for acquisition is the root cause of conflict. In
stark contrast to Plato's acquisition and Machiavelli's inferred desire to amass more
wealth, this is a powerful argument for the need of sharing what you have. Instead, it
emphasizes the formation of a family unit or a city-state. For example, he claims that
all creatures were created by nature with the sole intention of benefiting humankind.
In this perspective, acquiring something does not mean giving in to an abstract want
but rather fully realizing a fundamental human right. This is why the natural world
contains things that other people have a right to use (1256b15). To this aim, Aristotle
argues that a state's right to wage war is not negated if it seeks to employ these
resources sustainably. There are two main areas in which Aristotle's argument on
acquisition outshines that of Machiavelli. As a first step, it separates itself from the
acquisitiveness that Machiavelli maintains is driven by avarice and aggressiveness.
According to Machiavelli, the point of conquests is to strengthen territorial control,
hence King Charles of France seizing Italy was done so to expand French control over
Italy (Machiavelli & Wootton 44). The distinction between these two strategies is the
driving force behind the acquisition. According to Machiavelli, the motivation behind
a purchase is irrelevant so long as it satisfies a leader's deepest needs. If, however, the
motivation for the acquisition is to employ the riches for the common welfare of the
home or polis, rather than for the exaltation of the individual's wishes, then war is
justifiable, according to Aristotle.
In addition, in Aristotle's view, war is just when it aims to establish natural hierarchy,
which is to say, when it combines the desire for gain with the desire to be
unconquered and to rule over others. Together, it means that individuals who are
naturally inclined toward acquisition are not prohibited from pursuing it, and that
those who are courageous and want to stay unconquered are not forbidden from
pursuing it, either (1264b35-10). For instance, according to Aristotle, preparing for
battle shouldn't be based on the idea of enslaving civilians. Instead of working to
establish a system of slavery, it should work to ensure that the state is not enslaved
and that those in positions of authority are able to wield their authority in the best
interests of those they govern (1255a35-20). This means that legitimate wars are those
that are planned with the intention of protecting or establishing some kind of
authority. In contrast to Machiavelli, who views defensive war as a sovereign state
exercising its right to protect its authority, Aristotle focuses on whether or not
defensive war is influenced by nature. Aristotle's argument is more compelling since it
calls for political leaders to be guided by the needs of the governed. If the government
is going to wage war on a neighbouring polis, it should be inspired to do so by the
forces of nature. This way, battles will be justified by the necessity for defence or the
creation of government, rather than the free choice of individuals.
Furthermore, according to Aristotle, war is not a telos but rather serves to defend or
build a polis, making any poleis whose major interest is waging war or preparing for
war immoral. The Spartan Empire's demise prompted Aristotle to warn against the
potential consequences for a state that prepares its citizens for military victory and the
subjugation of its neighbours (1334b5). This is because a strong government should
focus on establishing order among its own citizenry and strengthening the peace
already present in the polis rather than on imposing its will on those from without. In
contrast, Machiavelli advises that leaders should use periods of quiet to go forward
intellectually and practically. By the latter, he means training and organizing his
troops and undertaking the lengthy exercises that adapt them to the rigours of battle;
the former, looking to the past and studying great leaders to learn from their wins and
losses (Machiavelli & Wootton 46). I agree with Aristotle, but Machiavelli makes a
strong case for preplanning. Training or preparing residents for conflict with the
neighbour moves the major emphasis of government away from controlling the
outsiders and towards increasing peace and justice for the inhabitant of the polis.
Hence, military preparation is essential for a state to flourish and become peaceful,
but it also carries a substantial danger of harm to the state, particularly when the
emphasis is on controlling the outsiders rather than the members of the polis.
As a response, Aristotle criticized the poleis that avoids conflict for the sake of
tranquilly. According to him, the peace of the other poleis was not diminished by the
poleis that made war on them for their own security. Instead, responsibility rests with
those who started the conflict for irrational or otherwise undesirable motives (1267a5-
20). The notion that every person has an innate desire to live a good life informs
Aristotle's criticism of the poleis that do not wage war. It includes internal and
environmental factors, such material comforts, that contribute to a fulfilling existence.
Since a good life can only be realized when there is peace, persons who fail to fight
wars for the sake of peace are likely to miss enjoying the life of virtue. Aristotle
disagrees with Machiavelli, who values peace for the sake of battle, and argues that
true peace can only exist when all aspects of a person's being are in equilibrium
(1277a5-25). Unhappily, a polis can only achieve this peace by actively participating
in battles rather than waiting for its own conclusion. This line of Aristotle's
denunciation is compelling and in line with modern society, as colonized nations often
rebel against their oppressors to win their independence. Since people want cosmic
harmony, which can only be achieved via peace among poleis, they rose up to
overthrow a society that denied them basic rights. Like in the 1837 Canadian
Rebellion against the British Crown, however, such peace or virtuous living can only
follow violent conflict.
Moreover, Aristotle's assertion that war should be hastened in order to achieve peace
ignores the intrinsic value of conflict, which has been shown by other thinkers. Battle
is so important, according to Machiavelli, that the prince (implying a leader) must rely
on it to win the respect of the men; otherwise, they would dislike him (Machiavelli &
Wootton, 45). Hence, in order to understand the art of war, Machiavelli suggests that a
leader study the history of great warriors in order to draw lessons from their triumphs
and failures. The worth of a battle is linked to a greater value, such the honour that
comes with subduing other poleis, as in the situations of Francesco Sforza and
Philopoemen, the king of Achaea (Machiavelli & Wootton 47). Yet, this viewpoint
does not align with Aristotle's. The latter perspective sees fighting as a means to a
desired end, which is the upkeep of polis peace (1322a5-35). The obsession with
victory in battle for the sake of glory offends Aristotle. In order to attain peace and
justice, Aristotle advises his audience to see war as a means to an end rather than a
means to an end in his argument. By adopting Aristotle's perspective, we may help put
a stop to the unnecessary wars that rage throughout the world right now, when rulers
are more interested in protecting their own reputations for strength than in ensuring
long-term peace for their citizens.
Aristotle stresses the importance of peace as the only reason for war in favour of the
aforementioned. He also highlights the city-state as the highest form of community
that works for the greatest good. He held that the polis is driven to be concerned with
morality when homes and families have a complete and sufficient life's end (1256b5-
25). To put it another way, the city-relationship state is good to all polis members
since it is focused on fairness. Hence, the only virtue that can be used to understand
the advantages of war is fairness. Yet this is the exact opposite of a Machiavellian
perspective. Achieving a goal is more important than how you go about doing it,
according to Machiavelli. Hence, goodness cannot defeat someone's desire. For
instance, in Chapter 8, Machiavelli commends Agathocles of Sicily for assassinating
Syracuse's senators and wealthy residents as part of a planned scheme to rise from his
humble origins as a private man to become King of Syracuse (Machiavelli & Wootton
28). According to Machiavelli, the rationale or virtue attached to the murder is not
very important as long as the intended aim is achieved. Yet this is not the case with
Aristotle. According to him, morality was the greatest good, thus all endeavors—
including war—had to be made to further it. As a result, only acts that further the
common good, such as fostering peace and justice in the poleis, may be justified, such
as killing city-houses states and families or beginning conflicts with neighbouring
nations. Also, according to Aristotle, governments are living things that, before they
were established, were reliant on the presence of an armed force to satisfy the
psychological needs of their populace. The polis is seen as an entity that can defend
itself as it settles internal disputes or considers its public affairs. Aristotle did not use
the honourable example of the creative war history of Grecian society to support the
inclusion of a military component. Instead, it exists to ensure that a life of moral
scrutiny exists in which it is used to administer justice, an essential element for the
wellbeing of the social organism (1270a5-30). By describing the conditions
surrounding the existence of the social organism, which is the state, Aristotle suggests
that war should only be fought for the goal of defending the social organism. This
viewpoint is attractive because it views the military as a valuable part of society rather
than a reflection of inherently human tendencies. Hence, war is fought to preserve the
organism, which includes the family and the state.
Aristotle understood the need of being prepared for combat in a variety of ways. In
their debates of the ideal constitution, he faults philosophers like Phalease for failing
to consider the need of arming his hypothetical polis with appropriate power
(1267al7-27). He responds by suggesting that the city's location be decided with
consideration for military defence and a committee that can decide between war and
peace (1288a13). Moreover, he contends that an effective government must be built
around a substantial military elite that can both dominate and be subject to the
authority of a well-established legal system where positions are awarded according to
merit. Here, Aristotle gives us a glimpse about how he felt about the place of conflict
in an ideal society. First of all, Aristotle appears less concerned with being prepared
for battle. He does this by emphasizing the need for meritocracy in military hiring
(1288a10-15). His true purpose, though, is to see the polis embrace a moral way of
life. Yet since he assumes that the military exemplifies these qualities, he thinks that a
strong military is essential for an ideal state (1288a10-15). This is because those who
are well-off and hold influential positions within the government are trusted with
upholding these principles, and these individuals can easily fund their own defence
force. Aristotle implies once again that the military's function inside the state is to
encourage the dissemination of virtues across the state. This implies that polis peace
as opposed to polis dispute is given priority. A state may protect itself against invasion
with a well-trained military, but only if a legitimate war is launched. The state is not
required to employ force while the military maintains peace with the polis unless it is
absolutely essential for legal grounds like defence or acquisitions. Second, Aristotle
notes that in order to keep the military from becoming too dominant in the polis, it is
important for it to act in conformity with the established set of laws. Aristotle pushes
for a constitutional framework or the execution of laws that restrict the authority of
the military because he recognizes the dangers linked with militarism's excessive
influence in combat (1288a13). In this instance, he criticizes Sparta's institutions and
constitution, claiming that its "hegemony" was significantly undermined by the lack
of limitations on military power. (1288b5- 40). From his criticism of Sparta's primary
focus on developing military genius to rule over others, which becomes outdated
when the supremacy is established, it may be deduced that Aristotle was concerned
about an overemphasis on the military in a state. He claims that when people are
unclear of what to do with their spare time and there are no laws limiting the
military's function in a state, the military is inappropriately used (1334a5-10). In other
words, it makes it more likely that they will get involved in wars that are against their
interests and might eventually destabilize their country. So, the military aspect is
crucial for leading a moral life, but without laws that limit the military's supremacy,
the state is more likely to become involved in unjust wars that don't bring about peace
but instead satiate animalistic cravings.
In conclusion, great thinkers like Aristotle and Machiavelli have always been
interested in the subject of war. The former holds that capable leaders must see peace
as a crucial component of war, regardless of whether they want conquest or glory in
combat. Yet, Aristotle felt that any use of armed action needed to be justified since he
saw it as a means of preserving peace. One of Aristotle's main justifications for war is
to preserve peace inside the polis, for instance. He makes the case that moral health
depends on tranquilly. The military's responsibility is to protect the necessities for
everyday living and preserve cosmic balance in order to keep the peace across the
polis. In contrast to Machiavelli's peace for the sake of war, which sees war as an aim
in and of itself, Aristotle's argument that war should be meant for peace is more
persuasive since he sees war as a means towards a justified objective.