According to Aristotle, a 'good' man is one who lives a virtuous life; however, Machiavelli says that "might is right". How do the two schools mix, if they do? Is it a vice to take advantage of those weaker, whos virtues are less?

Deepak Kotecha 1806

The two schools of thought intersect where might and virtue meet but both are at the disposition of one who is wise. For example, an employer or a company that has the prosperity of all involved as a common goal, which itself is virtuous. Such a company can wield financial might without crushing opponents all the while allowing everyone to also gain financially. It is only when a person or an entity seeks to dominate at the expense of another that the polarization surfaces. Thus, one can be wealthy, mighty and virtuous like Aristotle, or one can be void of virtues and yet be mighty and completely lonely and embittered like Machiavelli.

Unknown Brain 1390

Humans ae not "good" and we are not "bad." We are right in between and there is nowhere around that.

Alexander Baggett 1750

Machiavelli is refering to something that he observed. What he saw was people who had lots of money, weilding large influence even over the laws. When he is saying might is right he is refering to the fact that often those with power can legally define right and wrong. The schools do not mix. People in power may or may not be virtious, as power and virtue are not directly correlated. It is a vice to take advantage of those who are weaker than you, however it is also a vice to not live up to your full potential for fear that you will make others feel inferior in your presence. Also manipulating / taking advantage of other is a vice even if the people are less virtuous and even if what you are manipulating them into doing happens to be in their highest good.

Amitesh Agarwal 1236

The dichotomy lies in the system of beliefs where there are the concepts of absolute rights or wrongs. As we know in our day-to-day lives, we do not live in a world where there are no moral absolutes where the generosity for one becomes wasteful expenditure for others, where the soldiers for one country become marauders for another and so many other examples. We have seen that the values of society changes with time. What was once considered a virtue, such as owning slaves in the middle ages, may be absolutely abhorred today. So essentially if you do not believe in absolutes or absolute values in this case then the question that you just asked would become meaningless and and the contradiction that you are trying to show will cease to exist.

Nicholas Cioffi 1236

Aristotle lived a rich and full life, while Machiavelli died a hollow and bitter man. Now tell me, who would you seek philosophical enlightenment from?

Andrew Mino 2102

Truthfully, those two schools would have a hard time mixing. "Might is right" has the definite connotation of whoever is the strongest gets to do whatever they want, and thus it is "right" by ability of action. Whereas living a virtuous life and being considered good, has the note of being held to a standard set by an external authority.

Truthfully, "might is right" is logically flawed in that, it attains ends, but it does not actually define a viewpoint beyond that of a singular person or group. What is right or wrong (from a human or sociological perspective; we'll leave theology out of this for now because external authorities are easy cop-outs) is defined not by a singular individual, but by the affirmation of a group of people, and that group of people is often held to larger groups of people as a whole.

For an individual, or a government, to operate off the "might is right" idea, must enforce their actions or rules via might, or threat of might (psychological manipulation can qualify as might in that it has the ability to move opinions from one direction to another without the person or society's clear, direct, and conscious affirmation of that opinion being good or right). Any other acts would thus render the individual or government to not be acting off the standpoint of might. For example, a dictator is ruling his country with an iron fist. The vast majority of the people under his control disagree with his opinions, policies, and actions. They believe he is not right on both a moral and factual standpoint. Whether they act on it is another story entirely, and even if some do, and he kills all who oppose him, he has not in fact made himself right. There are still those who disagree, and some who still might not comply with his actions. His actions are right for him and his government, but they are right for no one else.

The question now arises, is there an ultimate right and an ultimate wrong? If the ultimates do not exist, then truthfully, right is defined by the individual, and thus might is subjectively right to each individual who applies it. However, the world has not operated in this way. While there are a great many theories and beliefs as to what is right and wrong, in general there are many things that are held in common despite a variety of options. The fact that the concepts of right and wrong exist beyond the individual conception and have been applied to the world and in the world everywhere human society has existed (in other words, every society has had some concept of there being a right and wrong that is not individually determined) would point to there being some kind of standard as to an ultimate right and wrong. The argument of there being no universal right and wrong is not a new one. The Sophists tried it, and Socrates beat them. Nietzsche tried it, and proclaimed it as a result of "God's Death", but instead the body that has held those beliefs has changed and adapted and is still encountering life and growth, and the common human experience of there being a right and wrong beyond themselves (this is encountered at some level in every human life, even if it is discarded early on, it is still encountered) was never truthfully addressed in Nietzsche's argument beyond that of the pining of the undermen.

Kate Nicholls 1293

You have received some very thoughtful inciteful answers to an interesting question. I am going to offer you a pracical example of how applying Aristoelean ethics and Machiavellain principles has helped me and confussed me.
I am involved in lion conservation and paying particular attention to issues of human predetor conflict. My moral sympathies are equally split between consern for the conservation of a vulneable species and concern for some of the poorest rural communites in Africa. Thus one both sides of my thought equation I have 'weakness' or rather vulnerability. Unless one anthropomorphises one cannot apply virture as a quality of lion but one can apply it when considering community. So we have our first imbalance. Lion have ecconomic value and value ecologically and the long term managemnt of sustainable lion populations will benifit communites financially and culturally. But hell who wants to live with lion on your doorstep eating your cows ( the sum of your wealth and the standard by which your status is judged) and potenially your children!
This issue presents conservationists with a profound moral dilema. Unlike those who are trying to manage natural systems for the benifit of wildlife and human communites Nature has no sense of right or wrong and imposses its destuctive and constuctive power with no concept of past, present or future. There are times when a Machiavellian approach to the socio-political challenges that arise seem a very attrative option when concidering the long term survaival of mutually imcompatibale but nevertheless mutually dependent species. Imagine offering this instruction- " For your own good" the following regionally spesific draconain management plans have been put in place (they may seem like a crappy option to you) but in the long term you will benifit.
In truth some very, currently, uncomfortable stategies would offer such long term advantage but morally they are untenable. Clearly might would not be right. So back to the drawing board and looking at some bleak prospects for both lion and man.
I often wonder how things might have been had Socrates accepted Leucippus and Democritus theories.....frankly I wish he had.

Unknown Brain 2141

Aristotle is right. Why live a sad life striving to dominate and be at the top -- pointless ambition -- at the expense of God knows how many different parts of your soul, when you could strive to be the most righteous person *you* could possibly be and love and enjoy each day?

What good does it do a man to gain the world but lose his soul?

Mustapha Nabulsi New Brain

first off no ones virtue is less than any body else's, but that he or she might be a less virtuous person.

Jovon White New Brain

I agree with Tony below. However, Tony, I would have to disagree with you on the notion that one can live his life by both principles. Because how Aristitotle describes how things aught to be is fundamentally different than how things are. If you say you live the way you should, but you do things that contradict the way you should live your life (i.e saying you live like plato when you really live like machavelli) then you are a liar and a hypocrit.

Unless you meant you can believe one and acknowledge the other.