1

5356
Instructor Batty-Sylvan
English 1A (R) Sec 505
5 November 2010
Compare and Contrast
Niccolo Machiavelli and Martin Luther King, Jr., were great philosophical thinkers in
their times. Machiavelli, born in 1469, was a political philosopher and civil servant in Florence.
He is known for The Prince, a short political treatise written in 1513. King, born in 1929, was an
influential civil rights leader against segregation laws. In Qualities of the Prince, an excerpt
from The Prince, Machiavelli discusses how a prince should behave to become a great ruler.
Kings Letter from Birmingham Jail is an open letter in response to Alabama clergymen,
explaining that nonviolent direct action is the only way to achieve civil rights in a timely manner.
Machiavelli and King had comparable and contrasting opinions on power, cruelty, and law;
delivery of the messages was similar, but their tones were different.
Machiavelli and King have different use for power, but at the same time, they both agree
that the person who has power should be responsible for the ones he has power over. Machiavelli
explained that the prince should use his power to keep a peace in his state, hence using his
powers to help others; and concurrently suggested that one should be more superior to others.
For example, in Qualities of the Prince he gave guidelines on how a prince should act to
become a great leader. According to Machiavelli, a prince should only appear all mercy, all
faithfulness, all integrity, all kindness, all religion (p47), but be ready to go against all beliefs to
stay in control. King had a similar approach when he was using his power to help African
Americans stop segregation. He also wanted every individual to be equal no matter what color or

2
race, and this is where Machiavelli and King had their differences. Throughout his lifes work as
a civil rights leader, he tried to achieve equality not by force, but by pure and moral actions. He
fought for his rights and rights of his people using nonviolent and moral methods because he
believed that the means we use must be as pure as the ends we seek. I have tried to make [it]
clear that it is wrong to use immoral means to attain moral ends (p196).
Machiavelli and King both agreed that cruelty is not a tool for control; however, King
advocated that it should not be used at all, and Machiavelli argued that it could be used if it is to
ones advantage. Machiavelli preferred the use of cruelty as a last resort, and wanted every
prince to be considered merciful and not cruel (43). King also felt that cruelty should not be
used to control people. At the same time Machiavelli believed cruelty was necessary to keep
order in the state, as discussed in Qualities of the Prince, but prince must desire to be
considered merciful and not cruel and he must take care not to misuse his mercy (p43).
Machiavellis position was that a princes goal is to master the balance of mercy and cruelty, and
use this skill to his advantage. If a prince is too merciful, it can be very damaging to the
community upon which he is trying to build his empire, and when it comes to the armies
then it is absolutely necessary that he not worry about being considered cruel; for without
reputation he will never keep an army united or prepared for any combat (p44). In contrast,
Kings movement was nonviolent. In one paragraph from Letter from Birmingham Jail he
asked his followers two questions: Are you able to accept blows without retaliating? and Are
you able to endure the ordeal of jail? (p183). King asked these questions to prepare his people
for consequences for being part of the movement. King knew that his fight against segregation
would bring cruelty to him and his followers, but they must not fight back. Even after the long
wait and abuse, Martin Luther King Jr. stayed positive and true to his beliefs of nonviolent

3
actions. Even thought they both agreed that cruelty is not a good tool to control people,
Machiavelli justified the use of it, and King said that is it unacceptable.
When the law was concerned, Machiavelli and King both acknowledged that it should be
followed, but went separate ways as to when it could be broken. Even thought they both agree
that all members of the society in general must observe law, they both brought up two different
points of when it was ok to break the law. In Qualities of the Prince Machiavelli states
there are two means of fighting: one according to the laws, the other with force (p46). He
means that sometimes the law is not enough to bring order to the state, and it is justified to resort
to force to achieve that order, even if it means to break the law. Machiavelli shows his idea with
an example of a prince who never lacks legitimate reasons to break his promises (p46). He
believed a law is there to be broken if it is to a princes advantage; Machiavelli said, A wise
ruler, therefore, cannot and should not keep his word when such an observance of faith would be
to his disadvantage (p46). King believed that one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust
laws because an unjust law is no law at all (p186). Martin Luther Kings view on laws was
simple: to obey them. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a
legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. (p186). However, Kings opinion on
segregation laws was different since they were unjust, and he believed that one has a moral
responsibility to disobey unjust laws (p186). King described, An unjust law is a human law
that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law (p187), and he meant that all people are human
and should be subject to a common law. King added, law and order exist for the purpose of
establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously
structured dams that block the flow of social progress (p189), supporting the idea that the law
must be the same for everyone.

4
Another compare and contract point is Machiavelli and Kings delivery of their messages.
The texts are very easy to read and understand. Both Qualities of the Prince and Letter to
Birmingham Jail are direct and straight to the point. In Qualities of the Prince Machiavelli
described how a prince should behave to become a great ruler, and in each paragraph, he
presented an idea and argued it from different perspectives. He explained which way is better
and supported it with references to historical events by giving examples of great rulers, and the
situations they faced. For example when Machiavelli talked about generosity he pointed out that
a prince must consider it of little importance if he incurs the name of miser, for this is one of
those vices that permits him to rule (42). Machiavelli then showed an example of Cesar he had
lived and not moderated his expenditures, he would have destroyed that empire (42). These
examples provided a very solid support for the ideas he was presenting. Like Machiavelli, King
presented a clear issue in the beginning of each paragraph, explained it in details, and supported
it with examples of the past events. Letter from Birmingham Jail is full of historical references
for example just as the Apostle Paul left his village of Tarsus and carried the gospel of Jesus
Christ to the far corners of the Greco-Roman world, so am I compelled to carry the gospel of
freedom beyond my own home town (182). However, there is a slight difference Machiavellis
text is a very forceful way of presenting ones views (36), and Kings letter is that of careful
reasoning (181).
Machiavelli and King agreed that people who have power should use it to help others,
leaders should not use cruelty for control, and everyone should obey the law. Even though they
agreed on these points, they had different vision as to how they should be put to use.
Machiavellis view of power was that one is superior to others, cruelty is necessary to keep order
in the state, and the law can be broken at the convenience of the ruler. On the other hand, King

5
believed in equality, did not condone cruelty, and supported laws as long as they were just laws.
Although the tones of the messages were different, their delivery was clear and easy to
understand, and all ideas were transparent and strongly supported.