Machiavelli's The Prince: To Stay Or Not To Stay?

1235 Words3 Pages

Diane Rendon
April 24, 2014
Professor Rainey
Social Foundations II
To Stay or not to Stay?
Machiavelli’s The Prince can be utilized as a guidebook to answer: “How best can a ruler maintain control of his state?” Therefore, if any employer reads it as a how-to-book rather than just a work of political theory, they can be seen as the ruler while the state would be the rest of the employees. If this is followed like an agenda, the sole purpose of government is not the good of the people but the stability of the state and the perpetuation of the established ruler’s control. It would define the city as an entity existing to serve its ruler rather than its populace. Obtaining the support of the people is not a goal in itself, but rather a means …show more content…

A prince should not concern himself with living virtuously, but rather with acting so as to achieve the most practical benefit. Such vices are truly evil if they endanger the state, but when vices are employed in the proper interests of the state, a prince must not be influenced by condemnation from other men. Machiavelli argues that a prince should always try to appear virtuous, but that acting virtuously for virtue’s sake can prove detrimental. Every action the prince takes must be considered in light of its effect on the state, not in terms of its intrinsic moral value. Machiavelli criticizes the concept of a “good life” reflected in the Aristotelian doctrine that demands virtuous actions in all types of behavior. But, a prince must break his promises when they put him at a disadvantage and when the reasons for which he made the promises no longer exist. In any case, promises are never something on which a prince can rely, since men are by nature wretched and deceitful. A prince should be a master of deception. Machiavelli does not argue that a prince should actively avoid doing what is good but that, if necessary, a prince must be prepared to act

Open Document