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

Just vs. ViableTo be sightly is to be seemly and honorable. Kids are taught that if you are kind and just you lead excel and be successful. yet lifes not fair and being just doesnt necessary mean that a rules of order will stand the test of time and be able to grow. The cardinal different societies introduced in muchs Utopia and Machiavellis The Prince are rattling different and although Mores Utopian society would be considered more(prenominal) just then Machiavellis society. Machiavellis society is more true-to-life(prenominal) and more likely to be viable. Leadership is a major takings when it comes to whether or not a society is going to be viable. It seems that if the leader is a good leader, a leader that puts his people first and wants the outflank for his country, then the demean and the society should flourish. But if the leader is a crowing leader, a power driven leader, a leader who puts himself first, and lets his people starve while he and his nobles li ve 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. separately set of households elects nearlyone and then those elects elect others, and although there is a prince they bland feed 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 report the prince in Utopia serves a different purpose. The prince in Utopia is there to provide stability. With the syphogrants and tranibors ever-changing annually the stability of a constant figure head is needed. More describes the government as followsOnce a year, every group of 30 households elects an official,Formerly called the syphogrant, but straightway called the phylarch. OverEvery group of cristal syphogrants with their households there is another official, once called the tranibor but now known as the head phylarch. All the syphogrants, two hundred in number, are brought unneurotic to elect the prince. They take an oath to choose the man they appreciate silk hat qualified and then by secret ballot they elect they prince from among four-spot 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(prenominal) 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 theme they were very just and honorable people. But when examined in depth it locomote 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 futurity societies. Except societies and societal ideas evolve, ideas that lap uped 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?