This essay examines the contrasting political philosophies of Aristotle and Machiavelli, focusing on their differing conceptions of virtue, human nature, and what constitutes good government. Aristotle views man as a political animal who thrives through reason, law, and civic participation, and defines good government as rule oriented toward the common good under just laws. Machiavelli, by contrast, portrays human nature as self-interested and sees virtue as purely instrumental—whatever serves the preservation of the prince's power. The essay highlights how these opposing foundations produce radically different prescriptions for political leadership, the rule of law, and the moral limits—or lack thereof—on state action.
The paper demonstrates comparative philosophical analysis: rather than summarizing each thinker separately, it identifies shared questions (What is virtue? How should a state be governed?) and shows how each thinker's answer follows from his premises about human nature. This technique reveals that the disagreement between Aristotle and Machiavelli is not merely one of policy preference but of incompatible foundational assumptions.
The essay opens with a framing introduction that names the central opposition. It then devotes a section to human nature, followed by virtue, and then the rule of law—each section maintaining the same two-sided structure. The conclusion synthesizes the contrast into a single governing principle: Aristotle's ethics-first approach versus Machiavelli's consequentialist maxim that the end justifies the means. The structure is tight and methodical, appropriate for a short comparative philosophy essay.
Aristotle and Machiavelli offer two opposing views on what constitutes good government. The main source of this dichotomy is their drastically different understanding of virtue and of the criteria that make a good political leader. In order to correctly evaluate the differences between the Aristotelian and the Machiavellian systems of thought, it is crucial to first understand how each thinker conceives of human nature.
Aristotle's claim that man is a political animal is one of the most famous philosophical approaches to human nature. For Aristotle, the "political animal" means that man can only develop within a state, and can only thrive by exercising his rational capabilities and obeying laws and traditions. Man has inherent capabilities and the possibility to develop them to their full potential within the city-state.
Machiavelli, by contrast, argues that human nature is generally self-seeking and self-interested. He holds that ambition is a common feature of those who have acquired a certain amount of power, but that the majority of people lack ambition and are usually content with what they have unless threatened from the outside. His view of human nature rests on the assumption that man is never truly loyal and that goodwill is temporary, always subordinate to personal interests.
For Machiavelli, virtue is synonymous with the qualities praised by other members of society. Although he advocates that a leader should appear virtuous in theory, he argues that virtues such as compassion and generosity are ultimately detrimental to the principality, and that the leader must forsake them when necessary. A prince should not be afraid to employ any means to defend his principality, including cruelty and dishonesty. All vices are forgiven if they serve the benefit of the state. However, these vices cannot be pursued for their own sake; they are not ends in themselves but must be regarded as means to an end. Like virtues, they are to be abandoned if they cease to help the state. The behavior of the prince must therefore be evaluated in light of his responsibility to defend his principality, not in light of moral values.
Aristotle's view stands in sharp contrast. Aristotle defines virtue as excellence in fulfilling the potential provided by nature—specifically, each person's capacity to perform a certain task and fulfill a certain role in society. This role is determined by man's ability to reason, which is the key to understanding Aristotle's conception of human nature. Regarding political regimes, Aristotle characterizes monarchy, aristocracy, and polity as good forms of government, while tyranny, oligarchy, and democracy are labeled as corrupt. The defining feature of a good government is that it rules in favor of the common interest, whereas corrupt governments rule according to their own private interest.
Aristotle's definition of a good government is based on virtue, the rule of law, and an ethical perspective on the functions and prerogatives of government, which has the duty to rule in favor of the common good. Machiavelli, on the other hand, claims that virtue applies only when it benefits the state, and that the prince is free to employ any means in order to protect and preserve his principality.
You’re 69% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.