In The Prince, Niccolo Machiavelli thoroughly discusses the critical role religion plays in the formation and maintenance of political authority within a system. He further states that religion is a beneficiary in establishing political authority and urges political leaders to endorse and support religion for them to maintain power. Machiavelli says that although the political authority must strive to remain secular, abhorring any form of religious influence, it needs to appear quite the opposite to the perceptions of citizens. The government needs to utilize faith-based organizations to keep the people pious by instilling the fear of God rather than that of the state to prevent the people from despising the leader. In turn, doing all these …show more content…
According to Melissa Mathes, Machiavelli believes that men and women are naturally sexual antagonists in the same manner as vurtu' and Fortuna. In fact, Machiavelli likens his enemies to women besides listing women as enemies of the state. According to Mary O'Brien, vurtu' and Fortuna are antagonistic forces. She translates the term virtu' to manliness, which is created around the notion of strict opposition to femininity. Therefore, she states that Machiavelli's effeminate characterizes that bad acts that boys must be taught to abhor. Other scholars also describe Machiavelli's gender views as unmanned. His views of human reality that characterize The Prince shows a vision of men embattled that struggle to preserve not only themselves but also their masculinity, autonomy, and achievements of civilization against all odds. According to the views of gender scholars, Machiavelli underscores masculinity and femininity as a competition and contest. According to him, the feminine constitutes the opposite of masculinity, which constitutes autonomy in every sense of the word; maleness, humanness, and adulthood. Therefore, Machiavelli's views of gender and gender relations seem to be a struggle against femaleness and effeminacy. It is quite certain that Machiavelli makes evident his perceptions of virtues as well as effeminacy, which is what virtue is not. Thus, within the Prince, Machiavelli appears as extolling the understanding that politics is a preserve for the masculine
In St. Augustine’s book entitled Political Writings, one could see that Christianity plays a very important role in his view of politics. His opinion on the morality or lack of morality in politics, to me makes it more evident that Christianity persuades his views. Although it seems his writings have become quite well known and admired, not everyone fully shared his beliefs. Niccolo Machiavelli, for instance, seemed to believe in a government that was not driven by morality, but more by practicality. In, The Prince, Machiavelli stresses that the moral fibers of government should not be so soft. Like St. Augustine, his work went on to become one of the most famous books ever written about politics. Throughout the two works there are some similarities and differences regarding politics, however it their view of Christianity and morality that many find most intriguing.
To describe human history as volatile would be akin to saying that the sun is warm. The quest for power and how to keep it is what has defined human civilization; altruism, as it applies to empire, just does not exist. No one has quite realized this better than Niccolo Machiavelli. Citing much of Roman political culture, which he believed was the most superior form of government that had existed, and infusing his "knowledge of the deeds of great men, which [he had] acquired through a long experience of modern events and a constant study of the past", Machiavelli collected the footnotes of history and applied his observations to events in his world (Machiavelli 31). What resulted was a theory that was ahead of its time and remained so for centuries.
Team C believes that Machiavelli’s principal idea is demonstrated in politics, “the ends justify the means”. If a leader is vicious and effective it is better than being virtuous and ineffective. Machiavelli, however did not endorse vicious behavior in general, just whatever would not “allow disorders to arise”. To remain in power, a leader must avoid the hatred of his people. It is not necessary for a leader to be loved; in fact, it is often better for him to be feared. The author states, “It is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be lacking” (p. 103). Machiavelli warns leaders against doing things that might result in hatred, such as the confiscation of property. Being hated, however, can result the downfall of a prince.
Machiavelli’s views were drastically different from other humanists at his time. He strongly promoted a secular society and felt morality was not necessary but stood in the way of a successfully governed state. He stated that people generally tended to work for their own best interests and gave little thought to the well being of the state. He distrusted citizens saying, “In time of adversity, when a state is in need of its citizens, there are few to be found.” In his writings in The Prince, he constantly questioned the citizens’ loyalty and warned for the leaders to be wary in trusting citizens. His radical and distrusting thoughts on human nature were derived out of concern for Italy’s then unstable government. Machiavelli also had a s...
Machiavelli's revolutionary philosophy begins with the opposition of the First Commandment: "Thou shalt not have strange gods before me." This Commandment is the basis for the entire Judaeo-Christian worldview, and is in essence the foundation of any monotheistic religion. Machiavelli instructs the prince to attempt to appear religious (135), (since such an appearance is useful to manipulate the populace), but there is no instruction for an actual observance of faith. Furthermore, a prince is instructed to consider one thing over all others: "A prince, therefore, must not have any other object nor any other thought, nor must he take anything as his profession but war, its institutions and its discipline;" (124). These thoughts of war override piety and prayer, and thus undermine and attack the First Commandment.
While neither Machiavelli’s The Prince nor Shakespeare’s Henry V focus explicitly on gender roles, they both make assumptions and implications sufficient to illustrate their opinions about the nature and place of women in relation to men. In Machiavelli’s The Prince, men and women are depicted in traditional gender roles with women as tricky and unreliable, but ultimately yielding to men who are portrayed as tough and immovable. Shakespeare’s Henry V acknowledges these ideas, but also portrays women as able to influence events within the small domain they are given.
Additionally, The Prince states that secular forms of government are more realistic than pious ones because a pious government would be bound by morals. In the Prince, Machiavelli tries to convey that the end justifies the means, which means any thing goes. He claims that it would be ideal for a prince to possess all the qualities that are deemed good by other men, but states that no leader can accomplish that. He also states that the security of the state should be the prince’s first priority and it must be protected by any means necessary. Although, this can be true in certain cases, Machiavelli uses it as an excuse to use evil and cruel tactics.
Niccolò Machiavelli thoroughly discusses the importance of religion in the formation and maintenance of political authority in his famous works, The Prince and The Discourses. In his writing on religion, he states that religion is beneficiary in the formation of political authority and political leaders must support and endorse religion in order to maintain power. However, Machiavelli also critiques corrupt religious institutions that become involved in politics and in turn, cause corruption in the citizenry and divisions among the state. In the following essay, I will examine Machiavelli’s analysis of religion and discuss the relationship between religion and politics in Machiavelli’s thought.
In secular democracies, power is necessarily derived from the will of the governed. That power is then entrusted to a leader, who Machiavelli would understand to be a "prince". Inherently, his book, The Prince, has been close at hand for most politicians for centuries, as it provides general, historically proven advice for principalities and republics on how to govern and maintain relations with their most important resource and the very core of their power, which would be the people themselves.
of participating in a conspiracy to restore the republic, because of this he was sent to jail for three weeks, and tortured. He fled the city of Florence, and decided to settle down in a calm quiet town called Sant’Andrea. He also decided to continue his dream and career as a writer. In 1513 he started to write his Discourses, this book focused on states controlled by the prince and the citizens. It was not finished until 1521, because he interrupted his work on Discourses to write the very famous The Prince.
After five hundred years, Niccolo Machiavelli the man has ceased to exist. In his place is merely an entity, one that is human, but also something that is far above one. The debate over his political ideologies and theories has elevated him to a mythical status summed up in one word: Machiavelli. His family name has evolved into an adjective in the English language in its various forms. Writers and pundit’s bandy about this new adjective in such ways as, “He is a Machiavelli,” “They are Machiavelli’s,” “This is suitable for a Machiavelli.” These phrases are almost always the words of a person that understands more about Niccolo’s reputation than the man himself. Forgotten is that Machiavelli is not an adequate example of the ruler he is credited with describing; a more accurate statement would be to call someone a “Borgia” or a “Valentino.” Most of the time they are grossly mistaken in their references. All these words accomplish is to add to the legend, and the misinterpretation, of the true nature of Niccolo Machiavelli.
Niccoló Machiavelli claims in “The Qualities of the Prince” that a prince must have certain qualities that will allow him to seize and maintain his power as a ruler. Machiavelli asserts that these qualities will guarantee the ruler to be able to govern his subjects effectively. According to him, a prince must study the art of war, must understand generosity and to what extent he must be generous to be effective, must choose to either be loved or feared, and be able to keep his word to his citizens according to the situation. These qualities can still apply in today’s politics, and will be useful for a modern time politician as long as they are used carefully.
In the sixteenth century, there were three sets of socioeconomic statuses that one could acquire or be a part of, the clergy, the nobility, and the peasantry. The divide between these three generalized classes was far more complicated in reality that it seems, as socioeconomic classes consist of multiple branches. Nonetheless, it all essentially came down to two undeniable factions, the oppressors and the oppressed. Niccolo Machiavelli, being a mixture of the two due to his living situation while writing the book, gained a middle-ground which allowed him to achieve omnipotent intelligence that so many rulers normally lack, first hand experience of what it like to live both lives, one as a peasant and the other as a nobleman. This omnipotent
The Prince by Niccolò Machiavelli isn't about one man's ways to feed his power hungry mindset through gluttony, nor is it just explaining altercations between a nation's states. This writing is regarding to how one's self-confidence can make them become powerful in a society and also, the way morals and politics differ and can be separate in a government. Originally, Machiavelli wrote The Prince to gain support from Lorenzo de' Medici, who during the era, was governor of Florence. As meant as writing for how a society should be run, this book has been read by many peoples around the world who want to have better knowledge of the perfect stability of beliefs and politics required to run a good civilization.
The role of religion in politics is a topic that has long been argued, and has contributed to the start of wars, schisms (both political and religious), and other forms of inter and intra-state conflict. This topic, as a result of its checkered past, has become quite controversial, with many different viewpoints. One argument, put forth by many people throughout history, is that religion and the government should remain separate to avoid any conflicting interests. This view also typically suggests that there is one, or several, large and organized religions like the Roman Catholic Church, which would be able to use their “divine” authority to sway the politics of a given state by promising or threatening some form of godly approval or disapproval. By leveraging their divine power, individual figures within a religion, as well as the religion as a whole, could gain secular power for themselves, or over others. A second view, which was developed by many theologians through history, suggests that that without religion there would be a general lack of morality in the people and leaders of a given state, which would give way to poor political decisions that would not be in the interest of the people and perhaps even God (or the gods). This argument, however, does not address the fact that morality can exist without religion. In sociology, it is commonly accepted that social norms, which include morality, can result from any number of things. Religion, laws, or the basic desire of survival can all create these norms, so it suffices to say that as a society, our morals reflect our desire to live in relative peace through the creation of laws that serve to help us to survive. The argument of whether or not religion and politics should mix...