Note: The copy of Politics used for this article is not the standard copy. I tried to be as precise as possible on the passages. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay Both Aristotle and Machiavelli extol the judgment of the masses in political matters. Aristotle states that “the multitude…can surpass – collectively and as a body, but not individually – the quality of a few of the best” (1281a). Machiavelli similarly believes that “the population is generally more prudent, more predictable, and has better judgment than a monarch” (156). The reasons that motivate each person's assertions about the lucidity and usefulness of the masses are based on different objectives. While Aristotle focuses much on the importance of the masses and the middle class for a stable political organization, Machiavelli is content to defend the collective wisdom of the population, stating that "Everyone speaks ill of [the population] …because he can do it. therefore without fear even when [the population] is in power". The contrasting ways of presenting the attributes of the masses strongly reflect the aims of each author. Politics centers on Aristotle's quest to find "the kind of Constitution whose most cities can enjoy” (1295a), Machiavelli, however, makes it clear that his Prince and his Discourses are intended more for the benefit and instruction of present and future rulers than for the enjoyment of cities, although he does not think so. not that the two are always mutually exclusive. the middle class has its roots in its belief that goodness is not necessarily an inherited characteristic He states quite early in Politics that men wrongly assume when they believe that "just like." man is born of man and animal of animal, so a good man is born of good men It often happens that nature wishes but fails to achieve this result. 1255a). In saying this, Aristotle is openly stating that one cannot pass down goodness through a hereditary line like one passes down family heirlooms or, for that matter, positions of leadership. The next pillar of argument Aristotle uses to build his support for the middle class. and the population is convinced that “constitutions which consider the common interest are just constitutions, judged according to a standard of absolute justice” (1279a). This statement reflects Aristotle's goal of finding a political situation in which "most people can live" and most "cities can benefit." Since Aristotle believes that it is crucial for the city to be happy for the individual to be happy (1324a), it follows that for a city to be happy it must have a constitution that considers the common interest (which satisfies the greatest number of people in a city, and thus makes the city as happy as possible).1 It is important to note here that Aristotle's goals in government are not necessarily the happiness of its citizens, but he firmly believes that the most stable governments will be made up of at least a few happy people. In his critique of Plato, Aristotle questions the lack of happiness among Socrates' guardian class.2 Aristotle argues that "If the guardians are not happy, who else is?" Certainly not...the mass of the people” (1264b). Aristotle's emphasis on the happiness of the masses is best explained in Book IV of the Politics, in which he explains the importance of the middle class in achieving a stable and desirable political organization. Like manyAristotle's (and Plato's) other postulations about government, many of Aristotle's beliefs and conclusions about the middle class have their origins in mathematics. He simply states: “Since it is admitted that moderation and average are always best, it is clear that in the possession of all the gifts of fortune, an average condition will be best” (1295a). Aristotle supports this claim by arguing that the middle class is neither arrogant like the rich nor criminal like the poor, and that the middle class is the class that embodies the ever-important rule of neither seeking nor refusing office (1295a), a quality that Socrates found equally, if not more, important than Aristotle. Another point that Aristotle makes in his praise of the middle class is that the rich never learn obedience while the poor never engender leadership skills. The result of the mixing of rich and poor is a slave/master relationship, not conducive to political association based on friendship. Aristotle concludes that a city governed as a friendship, "composed of equals and peers, which is the condition of those in the middle", will necessarily have "the best constitution since it is composed of elements which... naturally" . go and found a city” (1295b). Aristotle's reasons for believing in the goodness of the middle class can be used to access what Aristotle sees as the main threats to political organizations in general. Aristotle states in his book on factions (Book V) that “the inferiors form factions to be equal and the equals form factions to be superior” (1302a). However, where a significant middle class exists, Aristotle says that "there is less risk of faction and dissension than in any other constitution" (1296a). This improbability of factions combines with Aristotle's belief that the middle class "enjoys greater security than any other class" since it "does not desire the goods of others and others do not desire either plus their possessions” (1295b) and gives rise to Aristotle’s conclusion that “where the middle class outnumbers the other two classes, it is possible for a constitution to be permanent” (1296b). In other words, the middle class can be used as a tool to achieve the ultimate self-sufficiency of a permanent and stable political organization in which the constitution best serves the majority, or the people. Machiavelli also recognizes the great importance of the masses; he states in The Prince that no ruler can be assured without the support of the masses, militarily or otherwise (32-33). However, it is important here to distinguish between the masses and the middle class3, as they can be two very different groups. Even though Machiavelli states that "a republic can only be established where great social equality reigns or where men are made equal" (Discourse 153), he does not grant the supreme importance that Aristotle gives to the presence of a middle class. Like Aristotle, Machiavelli writes for an audience of leaders, but Machiavelli is more concerned with political organizations from the perspective of the leader, more than any other. Since Machiavelli is writing more directly to rulers, he often suggests ruthless measures that a ruler must take to achieve a certain political goal, whether it is good for the many or not. For example, Machiavelli states that “he who wants to establish a republic in a place where there are a good number of gentlemen can only do so if he begins by killing them all” (Discourse, 153). But even if Machiavelli is even if he claims to write for an audience of present and future leaders, this does not mean.