Thoreau vs. Machiavelli- Moral Righteousness for Different Audiences

Henry David Thoreau, author of Civil Disobedience and Niccolo Machiavelli, author of The Prince both have different perspectives on morals and usage of these morals.  Thoreau's point of view on morals is to stick to the principles.  He believes in standing up for injustice, such as the government.  He wants people to stand up for what is "right", whatever that may be to a certain individual.  However, Machiavelli believes that although morals are important for a ruler, they aren't necessary in order to rule over a population.  He believes that morals should be projected on the outside but inside, you should be shrewd and do whatever it takes to get things done.  Furthermore, their different perspectives are evident through their choice of audience.  Thoreau is writing to a population of civilians whereas Machiavelli is writing to rulers of these civilians.  Because of this, it is hard to find comparisons between the two philosophers.      

Audiences in both texts are an important aspect to touch on because Thoreau and Machiavelli are writing to two different types audiences.  Hence, their views on morals will be directed to that specific audience.  Through Thoreau's essay, he rarely mentioned improvement of morals on the government and when he did, it wasn't necessarily how they may be able to improve but simply on stating that the government has no morals.  Machiavelli, on the other hand, only targets princes and only mentions civilians when giving examples on how princes should go about dealing with them.  For Thoreau, his motive is to tell civilians to stand up against unjust rulers.  Obviously, Machiavelli can't say that to a ruler.  He says that rulers should not bind to morals because that may cause citizens to take advantage of them and create chaos.  Obviously, Thoreau can't say that to civilians.  You can't exactly pin point the rights and wrongs of both pieces because they are meant for different people.

Neither of them are wrong because they aren't talking to the same audience.  Machiavelli's ideas are efficient for a ruler, showing that in that particular situation, morals aren't needed as much as cleverness and shrewdness.  However, Thoreau gives good ideas for how a citizen should handle a ruler.  However, despite audiences, it is evident that Thoreau wants people in general to stick to their principles and stand up for something that is wrong.  But Machiavelli indirectly implies that citizens should obey the ruler, no matter what (precisely fear him).  But again, as said before, comparing and contrasting them it difficult because they aren't directed their advice to the same people.