Machiavelli And Friedrich | A comparison

It is interesting to note that Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527) and Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) talk about significant amounts of similarity, so that in truth, both have at onetime been known by the clergy of these times as the herald of the antichrist. Nevertheless, the similarity that exists between the two is principally underpinned by their philosophical standpoints, given that Machiavelli's and Nietzsche's philosophical postulations were seen as a their antithetical standpoints towards Christian principles, ethics and doctrines.

Particularly, a good example is Machiavelli's maxim that the end justifies the means. In his II Principe, Machiavelli recognizes man as a politics animal, but not because of man's gregarious tendencies as seen by Aristotle. To Machiavelli, man is a political animal for the reason that in the search for power, he has to act swiftly and be very cunning. Therefore, this brings in the ideas of competition which ensures that only those who find themselves really identified and enthusiastic on whatever they are simply doing are able to match the stiff competition. The divergence between Machiavelli and Christianity is further widened when he maintains that to seize and consolidate political power, it is necessary for the prince to go faster than his real and perceived foes and crush them. The rationale behind this standpoint is the fact that the person who goes fast and first emerges the victor, whereas the poor paced are victims (Machiavelli, 175).

The similarity between the above standpoint and Nietzsche's ideas is that both advocate against Christian ethics such as modesty and justice. Likewise, both disagree with the very fundamentals of Religious ethic as they both see man as an pet, whereas Christianity sees man as the most crucial being, with this importance being underpinned by rationality and morality. Therefore, the concept of seeing individual an important being they can be regarded as civilized and are not intended to become animals such to be not thoughtful. The primary difference between humans and animals is the fact that human beings have mindful and have the ability to think and reason out in whatever they actually unlike pets or animals. Nevertheless, Nietzsche's animal intuition of man is covertly pointed out, as he only refers to it, by critiquing Christianity for shutting its entrance doors on pleasure, do it yourself, the natural and appetitive elements of man.

In so supposing their controversial standpoints, both Machiavelli and Nietzsche postulate that the necessity to act towards do it yourself preservation, home actualization and do it yourself aggrandizement is paramount. This relegates man into likeness with the animal kingdom, considering that the pet kingdom is merely driven by the necessity for do it yourself preservation, through intuition. Since it were, the area for rationality instead of natural pleasure and home seeking is not given a big berth by both Nietzsche and Machiavelli. That is well proven by the actual fact that Machiavelli casts aspersion on the importance of values such as trust and shared respect or arrangement. Machiavelli argues that after fatally closing in on political opponents, the Prince must later on utilize his friends and eliminate them, since friends as confidants will have accrued a whole lot of political and administrative secrets enough to turn up against the Prince.

However, it's important to observe the fact that Nietzsche and Machiavelli acquired somewhat different known reasons for assuming their controversial standpoints. While Nietzsche maintained his standpoint on the consideration that he noticed Christianity a curse and God as being dead [non-existent] as the basis of his standpoint, Machiavelli's matter was not worried about atheism, theism or the concern over the lifetime of any deity. Machiavelli didn't write his radical standpoint for the sake of dethroning Christianity, unlike Nietzsche.

In esteem to these development, as a matter of fact, by conjoining ethics to Christianity, and criticizing Christianity because of its moralist stands and its own shunning of pleasure, debauchery and self seeking, Nietzsche fundamentally made a dereliction on the importance of ethics and morality as important constructs that contain the society together. It is at the same time, this juncture that Machiavelli and Nietzsche part ways, as far as their philosophical standpoints are concerned.

Despite his radical politics standpoints Machiavelli considers the need for tampering politics administration and guideline with some components of ethics. This standpoint is seen explicitly when Machiavelli urges the Prince to ensure that he didn't amass riches and affluence by rapine. Similarly, Machiavelli argued that in order that the Prince realizes a peaceful and steady administration, it is important that he remained away from men's women and wives. To Machiavelli, the inability to stay away from men's wives and the inability to shun the enticement of prosperity acquisition through larceny are the very factors that would drive men into vengeful tendencies and in so doing sparking off a political resistance, and consequently, instability. To any one analyst or careful audience, this is definitely a moralist standpoint. So moralist it is that many a world head is not in a position to keep. This is not the case with Nietzsche.

In almost the same vein, Machiavelli does not see religion as being retrogressive or disposable to the domains under the Prince. As a matter of known fact, Machiavelli reiterates to the necessity by the Prince, to desist from interfering with the Cathedral and religious things. To Machiavelli, the inability to do so would warrant the loathing by the masses. As a corollary to this standpoint, Machiavelli recommended the Prince on the necessity to acquaint himself with the clergy, to be able to have the ability to rule effectively. However, it must be remembered that Machiavelli advised the Prince on the need to ensure that the Church remained under the control of the state of hawaii, since the Chapel existed under the auspices of his domains, and the Prince ought to know the developments occurring within his jurisdiction.

On the other palm, Nietzsche in his condescending criticism up against the Christian faith or trust, becomes blinded to the point of disposing off, any need for morality, ethics and self restraint. To him, the actual fact that God is deceased has given man the liberty to enjoy himself. This is actually the fatal problem of Nietzsche's works (Nietzsche and Mencken, 139).


There is no civilization that can exist in the absolute lack of ethics. Within the same vein, it isn't tenable, the thought of governance and supervision of a individuals who have a completely laissez faire condition to do as they please. The veracity of the concept is well established by regulations which seeks to control and defend against the excesses of man. Nietzsche does not realize that getting rid of the idea of absolute expert to which all are accountable is to issue a blank check up on man's actions. On the other hand, handing man utter rights can make life intractable, considering that in wanting to exercise these utter rights, the rights of others and the expert of the state of hawaii to exercise its power will have been compromised. In summation, it's important to realize that the main difference that lay in Machiavelli's and Nietzsche's works was that of purpose. While Machiavelli only looked for to guide the Prince on the technicalities of politics, Nietzsche mainly sought to create an atheistic treatise.

Also We Can Offer!

Other services that we offer

If you don’t see the necessary subject, paper type, or topic in our list of available services and examples, don’t worry! We have a number of other academic disciplines to suit the needs of anyone who visits this website looking for help.

How to ...

We made your life easier with putting together a big number of articles and guidelines on how to plan and write different types of assignments (Essay, Research Paper, Dissertation etc)