Winston C.

Quilaton
Emmanuel Servants of the Holy Trinity (ESHT)
3rd Year AB Philosophy
Political & Social Philosophy
Dr. James Piscos

Assessment for St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas and Machiavellian Social and Political
philosophy

1. Make a diagram showing the key concepts of St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas and
Machiavellian social and political philosophy? (20)
I. Social and Political Philosophy of St. Augustine of Hippo

Primary source:
“The City of God”

On Human
Nature

Justice and the Church and State War and Peace

Two Cities
State
 II. Social and Political Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas

Primary source: Primary source:

“On Law, Morality and “Commentary on
Politics” Aristotle's Politics”

Natural Law and Government and

Human Law the "Common
Good"

III. Social and Political Philosophy of Niccolò Machiavelli

Primary source: Primary source:

“The Prince” “Discourses on Livy” Private
Maneuverings
Virtues Proper to
A Prince
Military Analysis
The Principalities Prince’s
Relationship to
The Military Internal Politics External Politics
2. Explain the given diagrams. (20)

I. Social and Political Philosophy of St. Augustine of Hippo

Augustine tries to explain the link between the timeless, unseen truths of his religion and the
hard truth of humanity's current, observable political and social situations. Augustine discovers
the core issue of politics at the intersection of these two concerns: how do the faithful operate
effectively but justly in an unjust world, where personal interests predominate, while the
common good is very seldom, and also where good and evil men are inseparable (and, to human
vision, often unidentifiable) intertwined, but nevertheless seek a heavenly reward in the world?
Augustine's political and social thought is based on his understanding of human nature.
Augustine's theory may be used to deduce three essential aspects of human nature, namely: (1)
People have free will; (2) they are driven by loves (appetites), which might be wicked at times or
are mainly disturbed; (3) and, eventually, all humans desire peace (cited in Mattox, 2012, n. p).
Augustine argues that people have free will because “God's precepts would be of little value to
man unless he had free will of choosing so that by performing them, he may get the expected
rewards” (On Free Choice of the Will, 1.2). Second, people are fundamentally motivated by
“loves,” and the humanity may be grouped into two categories: those who love God and choose
God to self, and those who choose self to God (cited in Copleston, 1962, 85). Because there are
two fundamentally distinct types of love, there are two contrasting civilizations or cities: those
who love God, the City of God, and those who love themselves and the world, the Earthly City
or the City of the World (cited in Onuche, 48). However, Augustine upholds a negative view of
human nature, claiming that because of the Fall of Adam, humans are interested in self and are
driven by greed, thirst for power, and an insatiable desire to rule above others (quoted in
Deane,1956, p. 56).

A. Primary source: “The City of God”

a) Two Cities
While still those destined for salvation and those destined for condemnation are deeply
intertwined, the division deriving from their various destiny gives rise to two kinds of people,
to whom Augustine refers generally and metaphorically as cities—the citizens of the City of
God and the citizens of the city of the world.
 Citizens of the Earthly City
“But it is a worse and more damnable pride which casts about for the
shelter of an excuse even in manifest sins, as these our first parents did,
of whom the woman said, ‘The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat;’ and
the man said, ‘The woman whom Thou gavest to be with me, she gave
me of the tree, and I did eat.’ - Gen. iii. 12, 13. (Bk. 14, c. 14.)
 “The one consists of those who wish to live after the flesh.” (Bk. 14, c. 1.)
The inhabitants of the earthly city are Adam and Eve's unrighteous descendants, who are
justly condemned as a result of Adam's sin. Augustine claims that these people are strangers to
God's love, not because God does not love them, but because they did not learn to love God by
their rebellious disposition inherited from the Fall. Indeed, the focus of their affection—whatever
it is—is not God. Citizens of the "earthly city" stand out in particular for their desire for worldly
possessions and dominance over others.
 Citizens of the City of God
“And so much is this the case, that some have thought there is nothing in these
books either foretold and effected, or effected although not foretold, that
does not insinuate something else which is to be referred by figurative
signification to the city of God on high, and to her children who are
pilgrims in this life.” (Bk. 14, c. 3.)

Citizens of the City of God are "pilgrims and foreigners," who are very much out of place
in a world without an earthly society sufficiently similar to the City of God (since God, the focus
of their love, is not instantly available for their current pleasure). The City of God cannot be
compared to a political state or even to the institutional church. Furthermore, in the two cities,
there is no such thing as "dual citizenship"; every member of the family group belongs to only of
the two.
The contrast between the two cities is comparable to the contrast between two loves. The
love of God and of one another in God binds those who live in the City of God together.

“These two cities were made by two loves: the earthly city
by the love of self-unto the contempt of God, and the heavenly city by
the love of God unto the contempt of self.” (Bk. 14, c. 28.)

b) Justice and the State

The Augustinian concept of justice included “giving every man his due,” which would have
been a well-established concept of justice at the time. Augustine, on the other hand, bases his
application of the term on distinctly Christian philosophical obligations: “justice is love serving
God exclusively, and so controlling wisely all else,” he argues (Mattox, 2012, p.2).” As a result,
the contrast between ideal political states (none of which exist on Earth) and non-ideal political
states—the condition of every political state on Earth—becomes increasingly important.
“According to this definition of ours, the Roman people is a people, and its weal is without
doubt a commonwealth or republic.” (Bk. 19, c. 24.)

To him, “Remove justice, and what are kingdoms but large-scale gangs of criminals?”
What are small kingdoms even though it has criminal gangs?” No earthly state may claim to
have true justice; only relative justice can be claimed, with one state being more just than the
other. Similarly, the validity of any earthly political rule can only be understood in relative
terms: if the emperor and the pirate are equally just, they have equally legitimate kingdoms.
Political states, however, serve a divine purpose, notwithstanding their flaws. In that
sense, the state is a heavenly gift and a manifestation of god's grace when it is governed well.
The state preserves order by instilling fear of punishment in evil people. Although God will
ultimately punish all those who have been sentenced to eternal punishment for their crimes, He
utilizes the state to impose more instant penalties on both the condemned and the saved.

“He who is not scandalized at the apostle’s censure of the horrible wickedness of the women
who ‘changed the natural use into that which is against nature’, will read all this without being
shocked, especially as we are not, like Paul, citing and censuring a damnable uncleanness, but
are explaining, so far as we can, human generation, while with Paul we avoid all obscenity of
language.” (Bk. 14, c. 20.)

“And a man is in this life spiritual in such a way, that he is yet carnal with respect to his body,
and sees another law in his members warring against the law of his
mind; but even in his body he will be spiritual when the same flesh shall
have had that resurrection of which these words speak, ‘It is sown an
animal body, it shall rise a spiritual body.’” (Bk. 22, c. 21.)

The last two kinds of sins are subject to change. In this sense, the establishment of the
state represents a restoration to order after the chaos of the Fall. Rulers have the authority to
enact any legislation that does not contradict God's law. Regardless matter whether a political
leader is evil or good, citizens have a responsibility to obey them. There is no such thing as a
right to disobedience. Citizens are always obligated to obey God; and when the primary intention
of obedience to God and allegiance to civil authority clash, citizens has to choose to obey God
and gladly bear the penalty of disobedience.

“For though the soul may seem to rule the body admirably, and the
reason the vices, if the soul and reason do not themselves obey God, as
God has commanded them to serve Him, they have no proper authority
over the body and the vices.” (Bk. 19, c. 25.)

c) Church and State

“This is the universal way of the soul’s deliverance, which the holy angels and the holy prophets
formerly disclosed where they could among the few men who found the grace of God, and
especially in the Hebrew nation, whose commonwealth was, as it were, consecrated to prefigure
and fore-announce the city of God which was to be gathered from all nations, by their
tabernacle, and temple, and priesthood, and sacrifices.” (Bk. 10, c. 32.)
 Although the useful reason for the state's divinely mandated existence is to aid and bless
humanity, Augustine claims that there is no just state since men disregard the thing that best
could bring justice to an unjust world, namely Christ's teachings. Augustine does not imply that
the current rejection of Christ's teachings means that all hope for future correction and
reformation has been lost. However, Augustine's overall tone is that there is no reason to believe
that the world's political realms would ever be anything other than what they are today, if the
history is any predictor of the future.
As a result, Augustine asserts that:
“[S]ome listened, while others rejected, and the majority found the blandishments of sin more
congenial than the salutary harshness of virtue; and so Christ’s servants, whether they are
kings, or princes, or judges, or soldiers, or provincials, whether rich or poor, freemen or slaves,
men or women, are bidden, if need be, to endure the wickedness of an utterly corrupt state, and
by that endurance to win for themselves a place of glory in that holy and majestic assembly, as
we call it, of the angels, in the Heavenly Commonwealth, whose law is the will of God.” (Book
2, p. 70)
Augustine clearly believes that the formation and prosperity of the Roman Empire, as
well as its acceptance of Christianity as its official religion, were all part of the true God's divine
plan. Indeed, he believes that the influence of Christianity on the empire can only be beneficial:

“It is also believed that it was by the help of the gods that the successor
of Romulus, Numa Pompilius, enjoyed peace during his entire reign, and
shut the gates of Janus, which are customarily kept open12 during war.
And it is supposed he was thus requited for appointing many religious
observances among the Romans.” (Book 3, c. 9.)

While Augustine undoubtedly believes that it is preferable for Rome to be Christian, he

also realizes that formally accepting Christianity does not inevitably turn an earthly state into the
City of God. Indeed, he sees Rome as a "kind of second Babylon."
“But since Grecian affairs are much better known to us than Assyrian, and those who have
diligently investigated the antiquity of the Roman nation’s origin have followed the order of time
through the Greeks to the Latins, and from them to the Romans, who themselves are Latins, we
ought on this account, where it is needful, to mention the Assyrian kings, that it may appear how
Babylon, like a first Rome, ran its course along with the city of God, which is a stranger in this
world. But the things proper for insertion in this work in comparing the two cities, that is, the
earthly and heavenly, ought to be taken mostly from the Greek and Latin kingdoms, where Rome
herself is like a second Babylon.” (Book 18, c. 2.)
Even if the Roman Emperor and the Roman Pontiff were comparable, the City of God
would not be formed if the institutions of state and church joined to become institutionally
similar; citizenship in the City of God is established at the individual level of analysis, not the
institutional level.
 “…if, though they had no fear at all
of death, they would yet rather suffer slavery than commit suicide, how
much rather must Christians, the worshippers of the true God, the
aspirants to a heavenly citizenship, shrink from this act, if in God’s
providence they have been for a season delivered into the hands of their
enemies to prove or to correct them!” (Book 1, c. 24.)

Augustine has no ill will against Rome. On the opposite, he prays to God for the well-
being of Rome, as he is a temporal member of it. He sees Rome as the final line of defense
against the inroads of the pagan barbarians, who must not be permitted to conquer Rome, the
mortal incarnation of Christendom. Nonetheless, Augustine is worried for the future of the
Roman state as a whole—not because it is Rome, but because it is a state; for every community
of men other than the City of God is simply a part of the earthly city, which is condemned to
extinction.
“What says Varro himself, whom we grieve to have found, although not
by his own judgment, placing the scenic plays among things divine?
When in many passages he is exhorting, like a religious man, to the
worship of the gods, does he not in doing so admit that he does not in
his own judgment believe[s] those things which he relates that the Roman
state has instituted; so that he does not hesitate to affirm that if he were
founding a new state, he could enumerate the gods and their names
better by the rule of nature? But being born into a nation already
ancient, he says that he finds himself bound to accept the traditional
names and surnames of the gods, and the histories connected with them,
and that his purpose in investigating and publishing these details is to
incline the people to worship the gods, and not to despise them.” (Book 4, c. 31.)

Nonetheless, governments such as Rome may serve a beneficial function by promoting the
Church's case, safeguarding it against attack, and persuading those who have fallen out of
communion with it to return to the fold. Indeed, punishing heretics and schismatics is completely
within the scope of the state.
d) War and Peace
“For it desires earthly peace for the
sake of enjoying earthly goods, and it makes war in order to attain to
this peace; since, if it has conquered, and there remains no one to resist
it, it enjoys a peace which it had not while there were opposing parties
who contested for the enjoyment of those things which were too small to
satisfy both. This peace is purchased by toilsome wars; it is obtained by
what they style a glorious victory. Now, when victory remains with the
party which had the juster cause, who hesitates to congratulate the
 victor, and style it a desirable peace? These things, then, are good
things, and without doubt the gifts of God.” (Book 15, c. 5.)

Given that the history of human civilization is primarily the history of battle, Augustine's
explanation of war as part of God's unfolding purpose for human history appears entirely
reasonable. Coercion (typically in the form of war) is employed in City of God to bring about
worldly peace. It is important to remember, however, that "Augustine admits that peace may be
genuinely just; but it may not be, because peace is more exclusive than justice." Agreement
might be the peace of conspirators or plunderers, or it can be an unjust peace” (TeSelle,
1998:110). There may be a better possibility for heavenly peace as a result of that peace, whether
just or unjust. This peace can be attained through the Heavenly City and its earthly spokesperson,
the Church. Furthermore, “this peace is founded on a natural order... all wars, even minor ones,
are conducted to restore or acknowledge this order according to the views of the fighting
factions” in order to establish peace (Beventlow, 1994:166-167). The church's role in
compulsion is largely passive, relying on worldly peace for the sake of Heavenly peace. This is
not to say that God is uninvolved in the result of conflicts, for “it rests with the decision of God
in his just judgment and mercy either to conflict or to console mankind, so that some wars come
to an end more speedily, others more slowly (Augustine, 1984: 216-217). Although certain wars
are waged in order to achieve peace, Augustine did not believe that “war and strife, however
righteous the situation, stir up impulses to ravish or devour, frequently in order to secure peace”
(Elshtain: 1995:11). Furthermore, there is a punishment aspect to the concept of a just war.
Augustine believed that a "just war" was the penalty delivered on a state and its rulers when their
behavior was so hostile or selfish that it violated even the standards of temporal justice. Other
states therefore have not only the right, but also the obligation, to punish these crimes and behave
the same way as the lawyer, law enforcement officer, prison guard, and executioner function
within the state” (Deanne, 1963:156). These forms of punishment can only be described as harsh
justice; the innocent will suffer with the guilty. However, they are state concerns. As a result, the
city of God does not appear to represent a significant, active engagement of the church and war.
As a result, the state is an organization established on fallen man for his transitory advantage,
even if the majority will not gain from it in the end due to their predestination to doom.
However, if one can effectively leave aside Augustine's concept of predestination, one will
discover in his works an extremely helpful descriptive description of the mentality of fallen man,
which will lead the reader a long way toward comprehending social relations between men and
countries.

II. Social and Political Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas

Aristotle's political theory and Christian faith were reconciled by St. Thomas Aquinas. He
argued that a just ruler or government must work for the "common good" of all. Aristotle did not
teach that the Greek gods or religion governed the earth and its inhabitants throughout his
writings. Instead, his observations led him to the conclusion that nature had a purpose and was
governed by natural rules that human reason might uncover. These natural principles provided a
framework for explaining the world and humanity' role within it. Aquinas came to believe that
one should only accept what is self-evident (for example, humans employ reason) or may be
inferred from self-evident statements (e.g., human reason can discover truth). Aquinas developed
his own Aristotelian commentaries, which comprised reasoned arguments based on God-given
certainties. He also published explanations of Christian theology that tried to reconcile reason
and faith, as evidenced in his book 'On Morality and Politics'.
A. Primary source: “On Law, Morality and Politics”

a) Natural Law and Human Law

Nature, like Aristotle, is organized for beneficial reasons, according to Thomas Aquinas. In
contrast to Aristotle, Aquinas went on to claim that God created nature and controls the universe
by "divine reason."

Aquinas defined four kinds of law:

“Thomas defines law: law is an ordinance of reason for the common good by one competent to
make it, and promulgated. In Q. 91, he distinguishes four kinds of law: eternal, natural, human,
and divine. The effect of law is to make human beings good (Q. 92). The eternal law is God’s
plan of creation, which directs the actions of creatures to their appointed ends (Q. 93). The
natural law is God’s plan for human beings as communicated to them by reason, and the law
includes primary and secondary precepts (Q. 94). Human laws are ordinances of rulers for
their subjects, beneficial to human beings, and derived from the natural law in two ways (Q. 95).
Only just human laws impose moral obligation on subjects, and the laws need not prohibit all
vices (Q. 96). Customs help to interpret human laws, and the laws should be revised cautiously
(Q. 97). There was one divine law of the Old Testament, and there is now a divine law of the
New Testament (Q. 91, A. 5).” (Aquinas, 2010: 2)
1. Eternal law

“Things that do not exist in themselves exist with God insofar as he foreknows and foreordains
them, as Rom. 4:17 says: “And he calls nonexisting things into existence.” Therefore, the eternal
conception of God’s law has the nature of an eternal law insofar as he orders that law to the
governance of the world he foreknows.” (Aquinas, 2010: 2, c.1.)

Eternal law was God's perfect vision, which humanity could not completely comprehend. It
determined how animals and planets acted, as well as how people should conduct.

2. Divine law
Divine rule, largely from the Bible, guided humans beyond the world to "everlasting bliss" in the
"City of God," as St. Augustine referred to it.

“I answer that in addition to the natural law and human laws, divine law was necessary to give
direction to human life. And there are four reasons for this…” (Aquinas, 2010: 2, c.4.)
 3. Natural Law
“And so Ps. 4:6, after saying, ‘Offer just sacrifices,’ asks: ‘Who shows us just things?’ and
replies: ‘The light of your countenance, O Lord, has been inscribed on us.’ The Psalmist thus
signifies that the light of natural reason whereby we discern good and evil is simply the imprint
of God’s light in us. And so it is clear that the natural law is simply rational creatures’ sharing
in the eternal law.” (Aquinas, 2010: 2, c.2.)

Aquinas wrote the most on natural law. As a result, humans are the only creatures among
God's creatures that employ reason to guide their life. This is the rule of nature. According to
Aquinas, the fundamental premise of natural law is that "good is to be done and sought, and evil
avoided." According to Aquinas, reason exposes specific natural laws that are beneficial to
humanity, such as self-preservation, marriage and family, and the desire to know God. Reason,
he maintained, also permits individuals to comprehend bad acts such as adultery, suicide, and
lying.

4. Human Law
“And we call such regulations devised by human reason human laws, provided that the other
conditions belonging to the nature of law are observed, as I have said before. And so also
Cicero says in his Rhetoric: ‘Human law originally sprang from nature. Then things became
customs because of their rational benefit. Then fear and reverence for law validated things that
both sprang from nature and were approved by custom.’ (Aquinas, 2010: 2, c.3.)

While natural law applies to all humans and remained constant, human law may change
depending on time, location, and situation. This fourth form of law was characterized by Aquinas
as "an ordinance of reason for the general welfare" issued and enforced by a ruler or government.
He did caution, however, that individuals were not obligated to accept human-made rules that
contradicted natural law.

B. Primary source: “Commentary on Aristotle's Politics

Thomas Aquinas finished a book on governance influenced by Aristotle's Politics in 1267.

"Yet it is inherent for man, more than any other animal, to be a social and political animal, to
dwell in a community," Aquinas argued. To allow people to reason with one another, he offered
logical arguments such as the self-evident reality of human speech.

a) Government and the "Common Good"

Aquinas also noticed that individuals are primarily concerned with their own self-interest.
"Therefore," he reasoned, "there must be some ruling force in every multitude" to lead them
toward the "common good."
 “But this should be observed even regarding a spiritually virtuous person, since, inasmuch as
the common
good is superior to the particular good of an individual, we should not impair what belongs to
the common good even though it is not good for a
private person.” (Book I, c. 4:5.)

As a result, Aquinas disagreed with St. Augustine that the primary function of governance was to
hold the sinful within line. Aquinas regarded governance as assisting in the pursuit of the
"common good" that benefited all. Protecting life, sustaining the state, and fostering peace were
all examples of the common good. This is what Aristotle would have called "the good life."

“But one would speak more

intelligibly if one were to say that the political community ought to have
enough property to live well with it. For the latter formulation is more
beneficial, since enjoying the good life includes more things than living
moderately.” (Book II, c. 6:8.)

Aquinas addressed the issue of unjust rulers, who may be a ruler, a few wealthy
individuals, or a large number of poor people. Aquinas observed that when rulers enact rules that
contradict natural law, they are referred to be "tyrants." "A tyrannical government is not just,"
Aquinas concluded, "since it is oriented not to the common good, but to the individual benefit of
the ruler, as Aristotle states."

“Aristotle gives a third argument, saying that human beings most

commit crimes in order to acquire the distinctions of wealth and honors,
not the necessities of life. For example, it is obvious that tyrants practice
tyranny for the sake of the aforementioned distinctions, not in order to
avoid cold or hunger. And so, because tyrants commit the greatest
crimes in the political community, the reward of great honors is for this
reason given to those who kill tyrants and not to those who kill other
thieves. And yet Phaleas applied no cure against the crimes of tyrants.
And so his way of organization clearly offers help only against minor,
not major, crimes.” (Book II, c. 9:11.)

So, what would the people do in the face of tyranny? Aquinas agrees with St. Augustine
that citizens of unjust government are not required to observe the rules because they are unjust.
However, Aquinas went much beyond St. Augustine and almost all other medieval philosophers
on this subject.
Aquinas maintained that tyrants' subjects, acting as a "public authority," might resist and
overthrow it. Aquinas advised that the people should not act prematurely, but only when the
destruction caused by tyranny outweighs the consequences of a rebellion. In Western thinking,
this was one of the earliest grounds for revolution.
 “Moreover, individual citizens badly administered
things necessary for such expenses, since no public authority required
contributions from individuals. Rather, it was left to the discretion of any
citizen to give whatever he wished.” (Book II, c. 14:12.)

- (Constitutional Rights Foundation, 2006)

Aquinas pondered the ideal structure of governance. Like Aristotle, he advocated a fusion of
governance structures. A king, according to Aquinas, is "a shepherd pursuing the common
benefit of the people." However, he was opposed to an absolute monarchy.

According to Aquinas, the nobles should counsel the monarch and restrict his power.
Furthermore, the king's laws must be the result of "reasonable consideration" and have the
approval of both the aristocratic and the common people. These were bold notions at a period
when rulers declared that no one could hold them accountable but God.

“But he shows why this union is first by what he adds: ‘not by choice.’
We should consider here that human beings have something proper to
them, namely, reason, by which it belongs to them to act by deliberation
and choice.” (Book I, c.1: 6.)

III. Social and Political Philosophy of Niccolò Machiavelli

Even though Niccol Machiavelli were several things—counselor, poet, historian—history

will remember him for his brief work on "Il principe" (The Prince), on princes and principalities.
This is the book that most often meets students studying politics for the first time, and it still
rests on the shelves of politicians and businesspeople. The Prince was not Machiavelli's sole, or
even his most important, book on politics. He poured "all he knows" not just into it, but also into
a second work, "Tito Livio's Discorsi sopra la prima deca" (Discourses on Livy). In both
volumes, he offers his political science in its entirety, but with differing emphasises that have
resulted in contradictory interpretations.

A. Primary source: “The Prince”

The Prince's purpose is to show that politics can only be constituted rationally in terms of the
dominance of force or violence; power as a right to dictate has no independent validity. He backs
up this claim with references to observable facts of political affairs and public sphere, as well as
arguments exposing the self-interested essence of all human nature. The work's twenty-six
chapters are divided into three sections. Its first eleven chapters are about the Prince; chapters
12–14 are about the prince's relationship to the military; and chapters 15–26 are about the virtues
proper to a prince and how those virtues may help individuals who read Machiavelli's book.
 a) The Principalities
“All states, all powers, that have held and hold rule over
men have been and are either republics or principalities.
Principalities are either hereditary, in which the family
has been long established; or they are new.” (Ch. 1:19)

The kinds of principalities and the methods of acquiring them are the themes of The Prince's first
chapters. In contrast to important ancient works of political theory such as Aristotle's Politics,
Machiavelli focuses on how principalities are acquired—knowledge that is more valuable to an
aspiring prince than to a passive keeper of old institutions. In Chapter 2, Machiavelli
distinguishes the hereditary principality—a principality committed to the preservation of
inheritance—as the earliest and least fascinating type of principality. He is primarily interested in
the principalities that are gained. He deals with principalities that have been gained via addition
as well as principalities that had originally settled according to their own rules. He discusses new
principalities gained by the arms and wealth of others, as well as principalities gained through
ones personal arms and virtue.

b) Prince’s Relationship to The Military

The next chapters examine acquisition by crime, through people's alliance, in relation to
military power, and in connection to God.
“And beyond this, to keep the
people quiet and without loss to the state, they always have
the means of giving work to the community in those labours that are the life and strength of the
city, and on the pursuit of which the people are supported; they also hold
military exercises in repute, and moreover have many ordinances to uphold them.
Therefore, a prince who has a strong city, and had not
made himself odious, will not be attacked, or if any one
should attack he will only be driven off with disgrace; again,
because that the affairs of this world are so changeable, it is
almost impossible to keep an army a whole year in the field without being interfered with.” (Ch.
10:67)

Machiavelli's focus on how regimes are established represents a change in viewpoint

from Aristotle's political theory. Aristotle defined political regimes based on two criteria: the
number of persons governing (one, few, many), and whether rule was for the collective welfare
or the private enterprise of the rulers.

“Let anyone now consider with that little difficulty the

king could have maintained his position in Italy had he observed the rules above laid down, and
kept all his friends
secure and protected; for although they were numerous
they were both weak and timid, some afraid of the Church,
 some of the Venetians, and thus they would always have
been forced to stand in with him, and by their means he
could easily have made himself secure against those who
remained powerful.” (Ch. 3:29)

That category stressed the goals of political regimes on the one hand, and the foundations
of each government in justice and human partisanship (the rule of many, a few, or one) on the
other. Machiavelli's change at the start of The Prince focuses on how governments are gained
rather than their goal. This change foreshadows a wider trend away from classical philosophy's
concepts of the common good and justice.

“Its root is that of the verb ‘rotisya,’

to bind oneself by an oath; and it is generally admitted to be
only another form of ‘rota,’ which now signifies a ‘regimental company.’ In both words the
underlying idea is that of a
body of men united by an oath. ‘Tribu’ were possibly gentile
groups, united by common descent, and included individuals connected by marriage. Perhaps
our words ‘septs’ or
‘clans’ would be most appropriate.” (Ch. 21:131)

c) Virtues Proper to A Prince

“But, it being my intention to write a thing

which shall be useful to him who apprehends it, it appears
to me more appropriate to follow up the real truth of the
matter than the imagination of it; for many have pictured
republics and principalities which in fact have never been
known or seen, because how one lives is so far distant from
how one ought to live, that he who neglects what is done
for what ought to be done, sooner effects his ruin than his
preservation; for a man who wishes to act entirely up to his
professions of virtue soon meets with what destroys him
among so much that is evil.” (Ch. 15:91)

The most obvious manifestation of Machiavelli's new notion of virtue is seen in Chapter 15
of The Prince. In that chapter, he addressed himself to all men, not only princes. He claims that
previous writers on republics and principalities have told men what they might do rather than
showing them how men really act. Pursuing virtue in the conventional moral sense, according to
Machiavelli, leads to misery "among so many who are not good."
In the four chapters that follow (16–19), he explores many of these pairings of traits to clarify
what he implies. Liberality and parsimony appear to be diametrically opposed: liberality is good,
whereas parsimony is awful. According to Machiavelli's new interpretation, liberality pushed to
its logical conclusion would cost a prince of all his possessions, leaving him without anything
with which to be kind. He should instead arrange his business in such a way that he reaps the
monetary rewards of frugality as well as the reputation of liberality.

“Nevertheless, liberality exercised in a way that does

not bring you the reputation for it, injures you; for if one
exercises it honestly and as it should be exercised, it may
not become known, and you will not avoid the reproach of
its opposite.” (Ch. 16:94)

Although Machiavelli authorizes monarchs to utilize both excellent and evil characteristics,
he is not merely endorsing vice in the traditional sense. Aristotle maintained that virtues and
vices were developed via consecutive decisions made over time. A pattern of faulty choices
would result in the establishment of a habitual vice. Machiavelli forbids princes from giving in to
their impulses, especially when it comes to their subjects' property or women. Rather, a wise
prince must research what is required for his rule to succeed. According to Machiavelli in
Chapter 15, he must "learn to be able not to be good, and to use this and not use it according to
necessity." As a result, the new prince climbs above or falls under virtue in the typical sense. In
order to avoid the ill consequences of fortune, he must pick what is essential at the time.
Machiavelli's new notion of virtue is based on his ability to achieve this successfully.

“In the first case he ought to be sparing, in the second

he ought not to neglect any opportunity for liberality. And
to the prince who goes forth with his army, supporting it by
pillage, sack, and extortion, handling that which belongs to
others, this liberality is necessary, otherwise he would not
be followed by soldiers.” (Ch. 15:96)

Thus, Machiavelli demonstrates to an ambitious prince how to position himself in relation to

the two humors that dominate political life: that of the great who want to rule and that of the
people who do not want to be dominated. Machiavelli's science depicts political life as the result
of these opposing humors. No sovereign, armed with such science, would do as the princes of
Italy did in Machiavelli's day and lament their misfortune. The political realm demonstrates the
opposing impact of fortune and human virtue, and men will collapse if they do not align their
virtue against the trends of fate. The belief in fate may help men when they are in need, but it
cannot provide a viable foundation for human politics.

B. Primary source: “Discourses on Livy”

The development of Rome was the topic of the ancient historian Livy, and Machiavelli's
interest in the governance of the Roman republic became the basis of his second important
political book. The Discourses and The Prince have perplexed readers with their diametrically
opposed focuses. The author, who advocated even violence when required for princely
achievement in the Prince, does not present with the same force in the Discourses. The theme of
the Discourses is republican rather than princely administration, and Machiavelli feels at ease
addressing that more common form of government.
The Discourses examines the national discussions surrounding Rome's ascendancy from both
an internal (book 1) and external (book 2) perspective before moving on to a consideration of the
private maneuverings that contributed to Rome's development (book 3).

a) Internal Politics

“NO ONE who reads how the city of Rome had its beginning, who
were its founders, and what its ordinances and laws, will marvel
that so much excellence was maintained in it through many ages, or
that it grew afterwards to be so great an Empire.” (Ch. 1:19)

The justification of party governance is what separates Machiavelli's account of Rome's

internal growth. Aristotle, on the other hand, believed that factions caused war, which led to the
constant downfall, or cycle, of governments. Instead, Machiavelli contends that the split between
the common people and the Roman Senate made the republic free and strong.

“For Romulus and the other kings made

many and good laws, and such as were not incompatible with freedom;
but because they sought to found a kingdom and not a commonwealth,
when the city became free many things were found
wanting which in the interest of liberty it was necessary to supply,
since these kings had not supplied them. And although the kings of
Rome lost their sovereignty, in the manner and for the causes mentioned
above, nevertheless those who drove them out, by at once
creating two consuls to take their place, preserved in Rome the regal
authority while banishing from it the regal throne, so that as both
senate and consuls were included in that republic, it in fact possessed
two of the elements above enumerated, to wit, the monarchic
and the aristocratic.” (Ch. 2:29)

Machiavelli believes that the conventional cycle of regimes may be broken within this
context. Rather of weakening a city, humoral strife provides a form of energy that may be
channeled outward, toward the subjugation of other regimes.

b) External Politics

“When I consider how this happens, I am persuaded that the world,

remaining continually the same, has in it a constant quantity of
good and evil; but that this good and this evil shift about from one
country to another, as we know that in ancient times empire shifted
from one nation to another, according as the manners of these nations
 changed, the world, as a whole, continuing as before, and the
only difference being that, whereas at first Assyria was made the seat
of its excellence, this was afterwards placed in Media, then in Persia,
until at last it was transferred to Italy and Rome.” (Book II:202)

Before delving into Rome's external deeds in Book 2, Machiavelli discusses the two
humors, those of the people and those of the great, from which national politics emerges. Rather
of attempting to build a decent regime based on a focus on the common good, Machiavelli
demonstrates how managing the many humors may lead to a more secure and better end.
Machiavelli then moves on from his original examination of Roman principles to a more general
perspective of political systems. He investigates how religion, culture, and values influence and,
at times, corrupt people and governments.

“TURNING THEIR THOUGHTS wholly to arms, the Romans always conducted

their military enterprises in the most advantageous way, both
as to cost and every other circumstance of war. For which reason
they avoided attempting towns by siege, judging the expense and
inconvenience of this method of carrying on war greatly to outweigh
any advantage to be gained by it. Accordingly, they thought
it better and more for their interest to reduce towns in any other
way than this; and in all those years during which they were constantly
engaged in wars we find very few instances of their proceeding
by siege.” (Book II:328)

Modern republics, on the other hand, are very diverse from their historical forefathers.
Modern "education," as Machiavelli refers to it, is based on a new religion. Unlike the Roman
religion, Christianity leads human qualities toward the everlasting life of heaven rather than the
gain of earthly glory. In Book 2, Machiavelli discusses the development of Rome and the
contrasts between the Roman and Christian religions. The Romans wanted worldly fame and
were successful in achieving it via continuous growth. That same broadening allowed for the
expression of household humours, which were formerly suppressed in political life.

“For anyone who reads of the methods followed by Saint Gregory

and the other heads of the Christian religion, will perceive with
what animosity they pursued all ancient memorials; burning the works
of poets and historians; breaking images; and destroying whatsoever
else afforded any trace of antiquity. So that if to this persecution a
new language had been joined, it must soon have been found that
everything was forgotten.

We may believe, therefore, that what Christianity has sought to

effect against the sect of the Gentiles, was actually effected by that
sect against the religion which preceded theirs; and that, from the
 repeated changes of belief which have taken place in the course of five
or six thousand years, the memory of what happened at a remote date
has perished, or, if any trace of it remain, has come to be regarded as
a fable to which no credit is due; like the Chronicle of Diodorus
Siculus, which, professing to give an account of the events of forty or
fifty thousand years, is held, and I believe justly, a lying tale.” (Book II:226)

c) Private Maneuverings

“DOUBTLESS, all the things of this world have a limit set to their duration;
yet those of them the bodies whereof have not been suffered
to grow disordered, but have been so cared for that either no change
at all has been wrought in them, or, if any, a change for the better
and not for the worse, will run that course which Heaven has in a
general way appointed them. And since I am now speaking of mixed
bodies, for States and Sects are so to be regarded, I say that for them
these are wholesome changes which bring them back to their first
beginnings.” (Book III:334)

Toward the end of Discourses, Machiavelli considers how war, occupation, and the
effects of such actions affect a republic, as well as how such occurrences may be best managed..

“From his example all who are discontented with their prince are
taught, first of all, to measure, and to weigh their strength, and if
they find themselves strong enough to disclose their hostility and
proclaim open war, then to take that course as at once the nobler
and less dangerous; but, if too weak to make open war, then sedulously
to court the favour of the prince, using to that end all such
methods as they may judge needful, adapting themselves to his pleasures,
and showing delight in whatever they see him delight in.” (Book III:333)

All of these ideas culminate in the dilemma of how to win the citizens of a captured
nation and so integrate them into the republic.

“A republic may, likewise, be brought back to its original form,

without recourse to ordinances for enforcing justice, by the mere
virtues of a single citizen, by reason that these virtues are of such
influence and authority that good men love to imitate them, and
bad men are ashamed to depart from them. Those to whom Rome
owed most for services of this sort, were Horatius Cocles, Mutius
Scævola, the two Decii, Atilius Regulus, and divers others, whose
rare excellence and generous example wrought for their city almost
 the same results as might have been effected by ordinances and laws.” (Book III:337)

Thus, contrary to the aspirations of ancient thinkers, Machiavelli's republicanism in the

Discourses implies that towns are not self-sufficient and must look abroad to accomplish their
own common good. The scientific study of virtue presented by Machiavelli in The Prince is still
required, then, in order to make his Discourses a reality.

3. Show its applications today. (20)

I. Today’s Application of St. Augustine’s Social and Political Philosophy

In essence, The City of God is an invitation to human society to decide which city it wants to
be a member of, and Augustine views his duty as clearly defining the limits of each choice.
Augustine believes that the goal of history is to demonstrate the fulfillment of God's plan, which
includes cultivating and establishing the City of Heaven with righteous inhabitants. God began
all of creation for this purpose. The downfall of Rome is unimportant in such a big picture of
things.
It was written more than 15 centuries ago and is now considered an indisputable masterpiece.
Augustine's masterwork, has generated many additional books and articles thereafter. Later
philosophers and theologians were profoundly impacted by it, and its effect may still be seen in
literature and historiography. As one might anticipate from a work authored by a bishop who was
a great theologian, philosopher, and administrator, its greatest effect has been inside the Christian
church itself (Yandell, n.d.).
Today's American Church is relativistic, catering to what it feels the world's leaders (in
education, politics, entertainment, and art) will be least upset by. It is strongly affected by pop-
culture trends, replacing biblical knowledge for secular emotional treatment the price of its
universal truths and historical realities, and even, at times, a comprehensible theology (Sheldon,
2009).
When we look around, we are tempted to despair, to consciously or unconsciously associate
the United Kingdom with the City of God, just as the Romans did with Rome. We witness the
degradation of our culture and respond as if ours, of all civilizations, will not collapse or fall
until the end, and that its decline inevitably signifies the end of history. Augustine tells us that
such thinking is incorrect; all man's kingdoms perish, and ours is no exception. We must
remember that the City of God is a pilgrim people, and that no matter what happens to our
nation, it is not God's eternal kingdom. We must not fall into the trap of looking to another
nation, whether it is the United States of America, Russia, or another state, as if it were the City
of God from which our redemption would come and to which we must be faithful.
The lesson that history is the narrative of two cities coexisting till the end of time must also
warn the Church of the very real prospect of repeated persecution, just as Augustine did in
Christian North Africa. While some of his contemporaries belittled the idea of further
persecution in the Empire until the final persecution, and while some in the twentieth century
were certain there will be no more persecution of Christians in the United Kingdom or the United
States, Augustine warned, “It does not seem to me that the number of persecutions through
which the Church is to be tried can be definitely stated.”

“And though they take our life,

Goods, honour, children, wife,
Yet is their profit small;
These things shall vanish all;
The City of God remaineth.” (Martin Luther, 1917)

II. Today’s Application of St. Aquinas’ Social and Political Philosophy

“It was such a form of government which was established by the divine
law.”

This is a line from Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica's solutio of the first article,
Question 105. Which one of us, twenty-first-century men and liberals, would not be prepared to
adhere to the content of these assertions? They were established more than seven centuries ago,
at an era when kingdoms and principalities, as well as the right to govern them, were primarily
obtained and maintained by the use of force. Certainly, St. Thomas' option to carry, and
absorption of even the most obscure meanings, of the classicial thinkers of Greece and Rome, the
Church fathers, and the scriptures suggested the principles of good administration of a political
society. These highly clear ideas were also influenced by young Thomas's experience at
Montecassino Abbey and the governing system of its Order. The ideas enunciated here are the
same as those found in the Italian Constitution and other modern constitutions. Sovereign rights
belongs to the people, who have the right to choose those who will rule them. Anyone can be
chosen, and everyone votes; there is no prejudice or exclusion of any sort. The text adds,
however, that the person chosen to lead must be picked for his competence and moral
characteristics, 'secundum virtutem.' His followers, who are tasked with governing certain
sectors of political and social life, must adhere to the same standard. They constitute an
aristocracy, not in the traditional sense of a wealthy propertied elite, but according to the etymon
indicating the "best" and the "worthiest."
However, in this new environment, not all were genuinely eligible 'de facto', even if they
were 'de juris'. Wealth, or the ownership of tangible commodities, was used as a basis for
discrimination. The term "aristocracy" was associated with the richest, not the best. Fascism,
Nazism, and Communism emerged in the twentieth century as a result and degeneration of
Hegelianism, the right and the left, and as a reaction to major economic and social imbalances. It
took the unfathomable death and destruction of WWII to resurrect democracies in Western
Europe based on personalist humanism.
 The notion of man is the foundation of our constitutional structure. It is neither the self-
contained individual who is always looking out for his own self-interest. Man is receptive to
interpersonal relationships and the common good. He has aspects that find fulfillment in social
and political life, as well as in the organization of the State to which he belongs, in order to
accomplish goals that go beyond the market's capabilities. Man, in other words, must be subject
to the rules of the state and operate within the framework of its legal order for his own welfare
and the good of society as a whole. Natural law validates the laws. They even have the King as a
subject.
By combining men's contributions, society produces advantages for individuals and
families that are higher than what any man could gain on his own. Not only do monetary rewards
depend on and flow from social life, but so do moral, cultural, and intellectual advantages.
Nevertheless, while man, who is a composite material in philosophical terms, is a part of society,
one of his components, the most fundamental for his being, also elevates him above society.
Democracy evolved in tandem with the contemporary capitalist economy. Private enterprise and
capitalism are important components of such.
Thus, the political and social implications of the international economy's unequal
development, caused in part by certain nations' incapacity to engage economically in a world
system based on competition and efficiency, have now been recognized. Overcoming these
effects has become a policy objective for affluent countries as well. Initiatives to erase the debts
of the poorest nations are a key component of this new mindset. One result might be the
elimination of debts that are genuinely unpayable but continue to hold debtor countries in
servitude. One such example is the Philippines' complete submission to Chinese rule. Countries
such as China could be enabled to reclaim a dignified place within the global system and to adapt
their economies, and to a lesser extent their political systems, to the needs of a more advanced
world, resulting in benefits for these countries and, as a result, for global economic and political
harmony.
At the moment, with global markets vulnerable to the risk of growth in the economy, we
must act quickly and seize the opportunity provided by favorable cyclical conditions and
abundant capital requirements to increase investment, alleviate structural problems that burden
our economy, and foster a closer link between wages and productivity in order to boost faster
growth and higher employment. This is the only way to end social misery and establish a fairer
distribution of wealth as well as a more just and stable society (Fazio, 2000).

III. Today’s Application of Niccolò Machiavelli’s Social and Political Philosophy

Machiavelli designed The Prince to be a guidebook for rulers, and he expressly states throughout
the book that he is not willing to discuss ideal republics or imagined paradises, as many of his
successors had done:
“There is such a gap between how one lives and how one should live that he who neglects what
is being done for what should be done will learn his destruction rather than his preservation.”
This is a classic illustration of Machiavelli's political realism—his aim to talk exclusively about
the "effectual reality" of politics, so that his book might be of practical help in ruling. But this is
where things become tricky. Lorenzo de Medici, to whom the Prince was dedicated, did not even
read it. If the truth be known, this weird little book for which Machiavelli is renowned, or hated,
never benefited anybody in the actual job of ruling, at least not in any methodical fashion. In this
sense, the best one can say about The Prince is favored as reading material only.
While Machiavelli "is usually regarded today as a morally corrupt realist who
purportedly believed the end to justify the means," he is, in reality, "a crystal-clear realist who
recognizes the limitations and uses of power," according to Pulitzer Prize-winning author Jared
Diamond. He stated that Machiavelli's argument "that we are not powerless at the hands of ill
fate" continues to make The Prince intriguing reading for today's political leaders. While
Machiavelli's intention is uncertain, one thing is certain: the book remains a piercing reflection
on the tactics some individuals take to obtain and keep power. Machiavelli advocated for leaders
to conceal their actual goals, avoid contradiction, and regularly “act against mercy, against faith,
against humanity, against frankness, against religion, in order to protect the state.” His name has
come to be associated with cunning rulers.
Today, “Machiavelli's aim in creating The Prince remains one of the great unknown
questions,” writes James Johnson (2013), a CAS associate professor of history and author of two
prize-winning works. Some claim he intended to promote tyrants, while others claim he
catalogued their misdeeds in order to expose them. Readers throughout the years have found
support for a wide range of causes: monarchists, republican defenders, cynics, idealists, religious
fanatics, and religious skeptics. One thing is certain: whatever its purpose, one thing is certain:
the book sticks to its stated purpose courageously and authentically: to show rulers how to cope
with the world as it is, not as it should be.”
The public's knowledge of, and outrage over, governmental aggression and its awful
human consequences is far higher today than it was in Machiavelli's day. As a result, we may
argue that the international community's response to such transgressions, as voiced through
institutions such as the United Nations and the International Court of Justice, is quicker and, in
some circumstances, more beneficial. I could argue that mankind has become more civilized, but
I don't believe this is the case. Perhaps rulers have improved their ability to justify war since
Machiavelli's time. He would not have been surprised in the least. He would smile in his
renowned unrecognizable smile, as if to suggest, "This seems familiar."

Primary Sources on Augustine:

Augustine (2000 Ed.). The city of God (Marcus Dods trans.). Modern Library Publishing.
Retrieved from https://1lib.ph/book/2641438/857337
Secondary Sources on Augustine:
Mattox, J.M. (n.d.). Augustine: Political and Social Philosophy. Internet Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. Retrieved from https://iep.utm.edu/aug-poso/#H4
Syse, H. and Reichberg, G. (2007). Ethics, Nationalism, and Just War: Medieval and
Contemporary Perspectives. CUA Press. Retrieved from https://books.google.com.ph/books?
id=yd-
VQI0utzoC&pg=PA56&dq=some+wars+come+to+an+end+more+speedily&hl=en&sa=X&ved
=2ahUKEwjXtfCx6pnzAhUPUfUHHd4gD1YQ6AF6BAgIEAI#v=onepage&q=some%20wars
%20come%20to%20an%20end%20more%20speedily&f=false
Etuk, A. (2021). The Enduring Influence of St. Augustine in Western Philosophy. United
International Journal for Research & Technology. Retrieved from
https://uijrt.com/articles/v2/i3/UIJRTV2I30008.pdf
SuperSummary Editors (n.d.). The City of God: Augustine of Hippo. SuperSummary. Retrieved
from https://www.supersummary.com/the-city-of-god/important-quotes/
Sheldon, L. (2009). FEATURE | What Does the City of God Have to Do with the City of Man?.
Gordon College. Retrieved from https://www.gordon.edu/article.cfm?
iArticleID=564&iReferrerPageID=1676&iPrevCatID=134
SparkNotes Editors (n.d.). Summary: The City of God. Retrieved from
https://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/augustine/section2/page/2/
Yandell, K. (n.d.). The City of God: Augustine's Timeless Classic About the Timeless City.
Christianity Today. Retrieved from
https://www.christianitytoday.com/history/issues/issue-15/city-of-god-augustines-timeless-
classic-about-timeless-city.html
Charmley, G. (2015). Augustine and ‘The City of God’. Banner of Truth. Retrieved from
https://banneroftruth.org/us/resources/articles/2015/augustine-and-the-city-of-god/#note-15
Luther, M. (1917). A Safe Stronghold Our God Is Still. C.D. Warner, et al., comp.
(Bartleby.com). Retrieved from https://www.bartleby.com/library/poem/3304.html

Primary Sources on Aquinas:

Aquinas, T. (2010 Ed.). On Law, Morality, and Politics (Regan trans.). Hackett Publishing.
Retrieved from https://1lib.ph/book/5580901/9690df
Aquinas, T. (2007 Ed.). Commentary on Aristotle's Politics. Hackett Pub Co Inc. Retrieved from
https://1lib.ph/book/816156/6bb18b

Secondary Sources on Aquinas:

CRF Editors (2006). BRIA 22 4 c St. Thomas Aquinas Natural Law and the Common Good.
Constitutional Rights Foundation. Retrieved from https://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-
action/bria-22-4-c-st-thomas-aquinas-natural-law-and-the-common-good
Fazio, A. (2000). The Contemporary Relevance of Thomas Aquinas. Rocasseca Publishing.
Retrieved from https://www.bancaditalia.it/pubblicazioni/interventi-governatore/integov2000/
address_11_03_2000.pdf?language_id=1
Anonimous (n.d.). Aquinas On Law. Retrieved from
https://people.wku.edu/jan.garrett/302/aquinlaw.htm

Primary Sources on Machiavelli:

Machiavelli, N. (2010 Ed.). The Prince (Mansfield trans.). Microsoft Press Publishing. Retrieved
from https://1lib.ph/book/661158/f1ffac
Machiavelli, N. (2007 Ed.). Discourses on Livy. Dover Publications. Retrieved from
https://1lib.ph/book/702194/6a9f5b

Secondary Sources on Machiavelli:

Great Thinkers Editors (n.d.). An Introduction to the Work of Machiavelli. The Foundation for
Constitutional Government, Inc. Retrieved from
https://thegreatthinkers.org/machiavelli/introduction/
Sipper, J. (2018). Discourses on Livy by Machiavelli: Summary, Analysis & Quotes. Study.com.
Retrieved from https://study.com/academy/lesson/discourses-on-livy-by-machiavelli-summary-
analysis-quotes.html
Harrison, R. (2011). What Can You Learn from Machiavelli? Yale School of Management.
Retrieved from https://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/what-can-you-learn-machiavelli
Rourke, J. (2013). Machiavelli’s The Prince: Still Relevant after All These Years. Trustees of
Boston University. Retrieved from https://www.bu.edu/articles/2013/machiavelli-the-prince-still-
relevant-after-all-these-years/