Abstract
After the clarification of key concepts that are central to the essay, i.e. ‘state’, ‘politics’ and ‘morality’ and after establishing relationship between politics and morality, I set out to examine how these two latter concepts have been conceived in history, using Plato and Machiavelli as parameters of study. Politics, so understood, is meant for the welfare of those for whom it exists. For fear of ambiguity, politics, political activities and activities of politicians in government are meant for all those covered by sphere of state authority. But how do we explain the disparity between its (politics’) original notion and the practical output? This essay attempts a highlight of the cause(s) of this seeming disparity as it sets out a reconciliation. It then concludes by arguing that even though the “ought” seems difficult (given human exigencies), the realism is rooted in the prescriptivism. And that in fact, the “ought” serves as a direction which fathom that “is”.
