Since pre-school we've been taught to do onto others as you would like them to do to you. Clearly Niccolo Machiavelli missed that lesson! He does however realize how important it is to be a good leader; however he does feel that it's necessary to sometimes risk the love of the people in order to achieve greater success. According to Aristotle power and happiness lies in virtue whereas Machiavelli believes that power and happiness lies in not necessarily being virtuous but at least appearing to be. Ultimately, power has nothing to do with happiness for Aristotle; unfortunately power has everything to do with happiness for Machiavelli, where in lies the dramatic difference between the two men.
             Machiavelli wrote a guide about how to attain political power by whatever means necessary, so you can obviously conclude that the man doesn't have many morals. He's all about getting to the top no matter what it takes. It's not so much that Machiavelli disagrees with Aristotle's views but that in some sense considers them to be naive. Aristotle would want his political leader to be charitable no matter what the costs, however this could possibly leave him broke to uphold his status. Machiavelli's idea of a perfect leader is a frugal leader. Instead of giving to everyone, you only give to such people like soldiers, that way you may not be loved by everyone but at least you're not hated and you're not broke either! You never get anywhere in life if you do what everyone wants you to do. Virtue is not always the answer, even if it's a good one. As the saying goes, "nice guys finish last." I'm assuming that by the sound of it, that would be Machiavelli's motto. I wish it weren't true, but in most cases you have to knock someone down to get to the top. However, why is it so important to get to the top? Sure, it's all good and well but it's not the answer ...