Machiavelli and Thoreau

Thoreau’s theme of individualism carries on to his sentiment about politics in the society. Thoreau argues that although individuals have conscious thought, a society as a whole does not. He explains that expediency is operating to get a practical advantage. Thoreau claims that governments must operate on expediency. Based on that notion, government is incapable of operating morally. If you are always looking for the best advantage, morals must be sacrificed in order to gain those benefits along the way. Therefore, government’s power should be minimized and the state should be left to the people in his optimal system.

As was previously brought forth, Henry Thoreau’s political views vary considerably from those of Machiavelli. Thoreau, in many ways, believes strongly in the individual. He has confidence that individuals will act appropriately if not restrained by society. This propels his accusation that it must be a violation of conscience to break a law. He argues that justice must be pushed to its limits to truly establish laws. Laws should be a reflection of morals, rather than fences placed down by society. That is why laws must be broken in order to establish whether laws are good or bad. Thoreau writes that, “law is unjust because it violates justice, and you must break it to make a moral statement.” Once a law-breaking act is done, the individual either will feel severe guilt or not think twice of the act. Through this method, Thoreau feels that realistic laws can be implemented in society.

Machiavelli and Thoreau both had various ideas for society and the issue of morality played an important role within the framework of both. While Machiavelli believes that morality within a Prince would be his ultimate downfall, Thoreau believes strongly that morality should essentially rule our society. What should be understood, is that both men are looking at society from substantially different perspectives. While Thoreau speaks of society from an individual standpoint, Machiavelli addresses how to manage subjects from a ruler’s prospective. An individual would obviously have a different prospective on how to make society better, while a ruler would simply be concerned with how to maintain his power. If one were to look at both men’s arguments from that prospective, then one can not fault either man’s ways. After analyzing this, on

Some topics in this essay:
Interestingly Thoreau, Virtu Fortuna, Machiavelli Thoreau, Henry Thoreau’s, Monarchy Thoreau, machiavelli thoreau, thoreau believes, political action, moral political, machiavelli thoreau various, thoreau believes strongly, defines virtue, moral political action, maintain power, actions lead, believes anarchy, machiavelli believes, establish laws,