Thoreau vs. Machiavelli

Henry David Thoreau and Niccolo Machiavelli are often presented as completely polarized philosophical figures. Thoreau is often thought of as selfless and ideological, or an angel crusading for justice, and Machiavelli is often thought of as entirely self-serving and uncaring for the feelings of or the plight of others, or a ruthless politician that only seeks to harm you in order to further his own goals. However, these thinkers are more similar than many people seem to think. True, Thoreau emphasizes self-sacrifice while Machiavelli emphasizes doing whatever one can to further one's goals, but the basis of their thinking is the same: behaving in a way that is beneficial to oneself.

Thoreau, in his essay "Civil Disobedience," (which has often been characterized as an anti-slavery essay), focuses surprisingly little on the goal of abolishing slavery as an institution. Rather, he focuses the majority of his energy on helping his audience understand why living in and contributing to the United States and therefore being complicit in the practice of slavery makes a person dishonorable. He characterizes prison as a place where "the State places those who are not with her but against her," and therefore "the only house in a slave-state in which a free man can abide with honor." In this instance and throughout the text, Thoreau says that an individual's priority should not be to abolish slavery, but to "wash one's hand of it"--that is, to renounce any and all affiliations with it, not with the purpose of ending it, but to protect one's honor. Although this idea is noble in theory and many of us and our society could benefit from us adopting it as a principle, it is nevertheless a fundamentally selfish idea. Machiavelli's selfishness, on the other hand, is far less difficult to observe. The underlying theme of his text "The Prince," is, to put it simply, do whatever is the most expedient to the advancement of your goals. The key to this that is often overlooked is that the most expedient course of action is not always the most detrimental to one's constituents--whether it is harmful or helpful to the Prince's people doesn't matter to Machiavelli, so long as it protects the prince's power and therefore is beneficial to himself.

The main difference between Machiavelli and Thoreau, therefore, is what the end goal of their self-service is. Thoreau's end goal is moral success and a clean conscience--being a good person in the eyes of oneself and in the eyes of his God. Whether or not slavery is actually abolished is of secondary importance to the fact that he has washed his hands of it, is no longer complicit in it, and therefore has achieved his idea of morality and remains an honorable person. In contrast, Machiavelli's goal is to maintain power. It doesn't matter whether the people are happy or miserable, affluent or impoverished, war-torn or living in peace--so long as the prince has maintained his position of power through whatever the most expedient means are, then in Machiavelli's eyes, he has achieved his goals. The differences between Machiavelli and Thoreau, therefore, are not as extreme as they may seem.