The Prince by Nicollo Machiavelli and Utopia by Thomas More paint pictures of very effective states. They both provide stability and security to the people that live within. Despite these similarities, the two states are very different. While Utopia represents the ‘perfect society,’ Machiavelli describes more realistic and insensitive ways to rule over a principality. The differences between these two states can be seen in the lives of the subjects, the priorities of the states, and in their military and government.
A Machiavellian ruler would not care too much for his subjects. He would only do his best to keep a good reputation and be on good graces with his people. From this it can be inferred that there is no specific system or style of living. It would most likely have a lot of capitalist ideas since it is a monarchy. On the other hand, Utopia relies on the unity and contribution of the citizen. There are specific rules on the everyday lives of the people. For example, the citizens all wear the same style of modest clothing and there was a lack of social ranking. Much thought would be given in every aspect of their lives, from food to marriage to foreign relations. In other words, in Utopia, the citizens, not the ruler, are the most influential part of the state.
Machiavelli made the priorities of a prince very clear: to stabilize and expand the empire. Through either moral or immoral means, a prince must acquire the most power. He may be deceitful or untrustworthy as long as he played his cards right. His state would have a lot of underlying political turmoil, whereas Utopia would represent community growth and emphasis on moral behavior. Utopian people would be very hardworking and educated. Their state would focus on how to deal with human nature. Utopia has no desire for wealth or war; it only wishes to be effective and civilized. Overall, a Machiavellian prince is able to cater to greed whereas a Utopian leader yearns for moral justice.