The People or The Princes? Thoreau vs Machiavelli

The ends justify the means.

This idea has been used to justify many controversial decisions, both on a personal level - such as skipping school in order to prevent an illness from escalating - and on a larger scale - such as dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima in order to end World War II.  Is this statement always true?  Do you really fight off illness by staying home when you could have gone to class?  Did dropping the bomb really save more people than it killed?  Thoreau and Machiavelli each take opposing stances on this idea (a result can justify any action), although they frame this in the context of human nature, government, and its powers: What are the qualities a person should value most?  What is the place of an individual?  When should one act?  How Machiavelli and Thoreau answer these questions differs greatly, but some common threads are woven into their ideologies, making the two more similar than they initially appear to.

What are the qualities a person should value most?

Thoreau lauds the man who is honest, independent, and active. Machiavelli, on the other hand, sees the most worth in a man who can “hold his own to know how to do wrong, and make use of it or not according to necessity.”  Thoreau strongly dislikes people who lie through action, meaning that should a person say they oppose something then they should oppose it through action as well as words; his example of this is the elites of the south, who are “petitioning the State to dissolve the Union” and to whom he asks, “why do they not dissolve it themselves?”  Thoreau believes that these men should live up to their talk and go through with what they call for.  Machiavelli opposes this view because “deceit always succeeded” for many past rulers.

What is the place of the individual?

Thoreau is a true romanticist in his view of the individual.  He believes in the power of a person, and his or her ability to make a difference.  Thoreau encourages people to throw their “whole influence” behind something they believe in, and believes that when this occurs it can bring about great and glorious change.  An example he provides is America; he says that America leads in many fields because of “the character inherent in the American people”, not because of the government.  Machiavelli’s opposing view is apparent based almost exclusively on his audience.  He advocates the use of fear and violence, as “long as he keeps his subjects united and loyal” to a Prince, which shows that he believes that the individual has little worth other than a part of the system.

When should one act?

Here is where the similarities between Machiavelli and Thoreau really show.  Each believes that one should act when there is a problem.  Each advocates throwing everything into the opposition of whatever is causing the problem.  Neither of endorses violence as a primary measure, but neither do Machiavelli or Thoreau rule it out.  The only difference is that action according to Machiavelli should be taken against uprisings against the government, while Thoreau believes the action should be against the government itself.

Thoreau and Machiavelli each view the question of “do the ends justify the means?” differently.  Thoreau believes that honesty, dedication, and action is best, and warns against taking rash action.  He believes in situations where the ends would not justify the means.  Machiavelli thinks differently; he believes that power should be kept at all costs, even if that means lying and committing violence against innocents.  However, small connections can be made between the two, which lead to the conclusion that the two are not quite as different as they at first appear.