****Writer's note: This paper dissects Thomas More's Utopia and Niccolo Machiavelli's 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 Machiavelli’s and Thomas More’s view on human’s nature. Each took a different approach to the topic. Through Utopia, Thomas More attempted to change man’s 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, Machiavelli’s concept is much more realistic than More’s; therefore Machiavelli better represents human nature. Machiavelli’s 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 man’s 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 Italy’s 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 remov...
