Ethical Philosophies of Machiavelli and Subramanian Essay

One of the greatest comparisons of wholly clock time is to demarcation line Niccolo Machiavellis The Prince with V. K. Subramanians The Chanakya Kautilya. Critic all(prenominal)y, a look tin can be taken into several(prenominal) antithetical ele custodyts of each authors work to best comp atomic number 18 and subscriber line them. To that end, a look will be taken at the political, complaisant, and honorable philosophies of Machiavelli and Subramanian to determine how they differ and in which ways the philosophies ar similar.Niccolo Machiavellis The Prince in the early 1500s as a way of adding his insight from what he had seen of politics and hereditary principality counterbalance though it was plagiarized during Machiavellis lifetimeand was never print by himmaking the text itself as still problematic (Machiavelli 11). While current versions of The Prince ar attri just nowed to him, this fact of plagiarism and publishing craft make the work even more(prenominal) intrig uing, given the subject study itself.Of the work itself, Machiavelli said that I pour myself bug out as fully as I can in meditation on the subject, discussing what a principality is, what kinds there are, how they can be acquired, how they can be kept, why they are lost and if any of the fancies ever pleased you, this ought non to aggravate you and to a prince, especially to a refreshing whizz, it should be welcome (Machiavelli 11). Machiavelli give the work itself to Lorenzo de Medici, even after he was put to torture by the family for treachery.Machiavellis methods are one of unique significance as he is writing, having been there, in the thick of things. Essentially, The Prince is meant as a guidebook on how to convention in all princely matters for Lorenzo de Medici. Machiavelli wrote about how hereditary principalities worked, how to keep that inheritance, and even how a prince could gain a new principality, and how a prince should rule his battalion and act, as a pr ince, and politically.While Machiavelli essentially confined his writings to obtaining fortune, retentiveness and obtaining tycoon, and virtue as a loss drawing card, a look can be taken into his writings to disc over the philosophies beneath his ideas. In comparison, V. K. Subramanians The Chanakya Kautilya was published in 1980 about and are translated from are translated from three works cognise as the Chankyasutras, the Chankyanitidarpan and the Arthshastra and are based upon the time in history nigh 300 BC.The intro of Subramanians work respects that Chanakya, too known as Kautilya and Vishnugupta was the famous Indian Machiavelli who was responsible for the overthrow of the last prescript of the zipper Dynasty and the enthronement of Chandragupta Mauryathere is an interesting story about Chanakyas beginning encounter with Chandragupta, which ultimately ended in their collaboration and capture of power (Subramanian 1).Subramanians work, then, is a direct reflection of Machiavellis own. What makes them similar, however, despite the men within the tales, is the philosophies shared between the ii. Machiavellis political ism is by chance the easiest to pinpoint as the truly purpose of his work revolved nearly the necessity of a prince to reign successfully. Machiavelli, actually, mainly focused on the political aspects of maintaining and gaining principalities.He notes that let any one now consider with what myopic difficulty the king could need maintained his position in Italy had he observed the rules above laid down, and kept all his friends secure and foster for although they were numerous they were both weak and timid, some afraid of the Churchand hence they would always have been dragd to stand in with him, and by their marrow he could easily have made himself secure against those who remained powerful (30).Machiavelli is prod his prince to take note of the past and understand that had the king protected his weaker neighbors, he w ould have not further gained them as allies scarcely also could have gained them as p prowess of his reign. And, at all costs, he should protect his allies as he would protect his own sustain tos. Politically, being a stronger power, he would have been made into the attractor, who they would be indebted to and would look out with more loyalty than any money could purchase. And, to Machiavelli, the art of gaining allies and principalities, even de facto ones, was the art to be achieved.Even more so, Subramanians fourth maxim empower Advisors, Aides, Counselors, Ministers, notes that after equipping oneself fully, one should seek an ally (aide), one without an consultant has no certainty of counsel, one wheel does not move (the vehicle), the straight aide serves alike in prosperity and adversity, a self respecting ruler should appoint as counselor, one who is inferior to him, and respects himdeflection to the oppositeness takes place due to negligence (22-25). In this, Subram anian agrees wholeheartedly with Machiavellis positments.To be a successful ruler, allies mustiness be taken and protected, number one and foremost, before true rule can begin. The reason being, that with allies, a force become much stronger, incrementally, with each ally added. Furthermore, each ally must be protected and cared for to ensure their cooperationbut with that cooperation comes an extended kingdom. Indeed, Machiavellis social philosophy can be found within his writings on obtaining fortune. Machiavelli writes that principalities are both hereditary, in which the family has been long established or they are new.such dominions thus acquired are either accustomed to drop dead under a prince, or to live in freedom and are acquired either by the arms of the prince himself, or of others, or else by fortune or by ability (21). Machiavelli is commenting, simply, that the way in which a prince gains set down is two-fold either he inherits it or he fights for it. The manner in which the prince gains and obtains his land, however, is what makes the prince either honey by his citizenry or hated. For Machiavelli, gaining the most principalities possible by virtuous means was the ideal result.And, as he instructed his prince, it was best to be good, socially, if any hopes of maintaining that principality are held. In fact, Machiavelli comments that, for example, Louis the Twelfth, King of France, quickly engaged Milan, and as quickly lost it and to turn him out the frontmost time it only needed Lodovicos own forces because those who had opened the gates to him, purpose themselves deceived in their hopes of future benefit, would not endure the ill-treatment of the new prince (23).Moreover, it is very true that, after acquiring rebellious provinces a second time, they are not so lightly lost after struggleds, because the prince, with little reluctance, takes the opportunity of the ascension to punish the delinquents, to clear out the suspects, and to strengthen himself in the weakest places (24). Thus, not only is it important for a prince to be clear in his occupation in a land, to become most be knowd, he must first get rid of the troublemakersthus leaving the peaceable, and willing to be occupied. If a prince does not take this step, he is left in hostile territory with people willing to stage an overthrow.On contrast, Subramanian writes out a few of the maxims of Chanakya, citing that economical prosperity creates prosperity for the people, if the people are prosperous, even a leaderless state can be governed, peoples rabidity is the greatest of furiesand to be without a master is better than having an arrogant master (22). In this, the two authors cannot be more different from the other. Machiavelli believes that the first step of any prince should be to take a firm grasp upon his principalities, to conquer new ones, and to win the dissenters by force before they can rally for an overthrow.Machiavelli believes that by acquire rid of the rebellious people before they can act, a leader can sustain and mark his position within his land, taking shift before the people even really know that it has happened. Then, formerly all the disorder has been stamped out, a leader can begin to make his land prosperous. However, Subramanian cites a very different kind of social philosophy, making note that a leader might as well not comprise if he intends to be a tyrant to the people, that a people have more respect for a man intent on prosperity, first, and rebellion last.Because, in an attempt to rout the dissenters, a leader would make a dent on the value the people hold for himand thus their fury would remain. To really be a true leader and be beloved by his land, a leader must intend on richness and prosperity as his bottom line. Finally, Machiavellis ethical and moral philosophy requires the most interpretation to highlight significantly. As Machiavelli writes about virtue in a leader, instructing a pri nce on how to act and behave, an ethical philosophy is formed.On contrast, Subramanians ethical philosophy stems from his ethical roots maxim that states responsibility is the root of happiness, wealth is the root of righteousness, the state of the root is wealth, victory over senses is the root of the state, humility is the root of sense control, worship of elders is the root of humility, intelligence results from the worship of elders, with firmness one can prosper, the prosperous one becomes the fetching oneand the victorious one obtains all the riches (21-22). Despite its cryptic fortune-cookie nature, Subramanians writings do indeed have a fine message on ethical philosophy, here.In explicating the words, Subramanian is saying that to be a good leader, on must first be righteous, but to be righteous, one must first have wealth, to have wealth, one must first have victory, to have victory, one must first have humility, to have humility, one must listen to their elders to obta in wisdom, and with that wisdom a leader can prosper and be victorious in all they seek to achieve. The value here, is that Subramanian notes the significance of wisdom in all things. Without wisdom and undermentioned and heeding the elders who have come before, a leader stands no chance of being successful.Morally, a leader is obligated to his people to be triumphant so that the land can prosper, but without wisdom, a leader is nothing to his people but a tyrant. Subramanian says what Machiavelli does not. To Machiavelli, leading a people, by first disposing of the bad ones, is the best way for a prince to prosper in his lands. While he encourages his prince to be sound and wise, he first sends out the encouragement that the prince must always guard his assets, for fear of being overthrown or taken down by a greater force. To Machiavelli, obtaining land and favourable was, essentially, about war.To win that war, a prince had to be wise, and indeed, listen to his elders as well, b ut not in the ethical sense. Machiavelli meant for the prince to watch out for himself, first and foremost, and then, once the land became prosperous, Machiavelli encouraged the prince to be good to his people so that they would love him and understand that they were prosperous because of him. To Machiavelli, the ethical philosophy came last, after conquering and protect ones principalities. Overall, one of the greatest comparisons of all time is to contrast Niccolo Machiavellis The Prince with V. K.Subramanians The Chanakya Kautilya. Taking a look at several different elements of each authors work critically revealed a great level of significance as to their philosophies on politics, socially, and even ethically. Politically, Machiavelli and Subramanian follow the same philosophy, which intends a leader to find and protect allies first and foremost. As to social philosophy, however, the two authors cannot be more different. Machiavelli intends his prince to take blossom and stamp out rebellion, while Subramanian cites that prosperity and kindness should be shown towards the new land.And finally, ethically, the two authors also differ. Machiavelli is intent on a prince who focuses on war and conquering new lands, and in this way a leader can gain wisdom and insighthowever, to Subramanian, wisdom only comes by following ones elders. Morally, a leader is obligated to his people to be triumphant so that the land can prosper, but without wisdom, a leader is nothing to his people but a tyrant. Works Cited. Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince. Trns. W. K. Marriott. New York homy Label Books, 1910. Subramanian, V. K. Maxims of Chanakya Kautilya. India Abhinav Publications, 1980.