For as long as people have studied politics, both leaders and countrymen alike have sought for an answer to the question “What is the most effective way to rule?” Many political philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and more Recently John Rawls have given answers to such a question, but none of them provide as solid a stance as Niccolo Machiavelli. Much of Machiavelli’s ideology centres around his dubious views on human nature. He, much like Hobbes, held the idea that when left in a state of nature, humans would become brutish and evil creatures who lived only to fulfill their personal needs and desires. However, this is only a small glimpse of Machiavelli’s beliefs regarding human nature. Rather than ponder …show more content…
Having written The Prince in 1532, it is easy to identify Machiavelli’s views on human nature as bleak and largely immoral. From this identification, one is able to relate his political advice to the modern day; however, doing so will only result in the realization that they are largely incompatible. In this essay, three of Machiavelli’s main points will be challenged according to modern day standards of politics, morality, and ethics. His sentiments regarding neutrality, public opinion, and presence, all of which are cornerstones of his philosophy, will be analyzed, ultimately revealing, with little exception, the way they do not apply to the modern standards of leadership. Machiavelli lived during a period of great moral deficiency. Thus, it is no surprise that his views on human nature were bleak and his political ideologies destructive. If contemporary leaders were to take his advice on how to rule, the results would be catastrophic, as much of it is provocative, counter-intuitive, and unnecessary in today's …show more content…
The conclusion he came to was that a head of state should live within the confines of his or her own nation, specifically in regions that are at high risk of being lost by method of annexation or insurgency. Returning once again to the times of the French Revolution, one can identify a failed attempt at Machiavelli’s “be present” sentiment. King Louis XVI spent the majority of his time in his palace at Versailles as opposed to living within the royal residence in Paris. While this is not entirely his fault, as the palace at Versailles was created by King Louis XIV (The “Sun King”) and provided great strategic advantage for the French Monarchy during his reign, King Louis XVI faced the consequences of a fed up populace as he hid away from the growing economic and social problems that ultimately led to The French Revolution. His downright refusal to cooperate or even make his presence known to the people of France is the principal cause of his failure. His apathetic behaviour ensured that mutinous groups went unchecked, allowing them to grow in power to a point where he could no longer control them. In modern society, Machiavelli’s principle of presence has become largely unnecessary due to the fact that, at least in most developed countries, there is little to no risk of insurgency against the government. In addition to this, the idea that a leader of a
Niccolò Machiavelli was a man who lived during the fourteen and fifteen hundreds in Florence, Italy, and spent part of his life imprisoned after the Medici princes returned to power. He believed that he should express his feelings on how a prince should be through writing and became the author of “The Qualities of a Prince.” In his essay, he discusses many points on how a prince should act based on military matters, reputation, giving back to the people, punishment, and keeping promises. When writing his essay, he follows his points with examples to back up his beliefs. In summary, Machiavelli’s “The Qualities of a Prince,” provides us with what actions and behaviors that a prince should have in order to maintain power and respect.
To Machiavelli, people are children that need order. They are childlike, not in their innocence, but in their passions. They are ungrateful, greedy, deceptive, and fickle. However, they are also rational and interested in avoiding danger. In calculating their interests they can perceive the need to join together to pursue common goals, such as conquest for acquisition, p...
The most astounding aspect of The Prince is Machiavelli’s view that princes may indeed, be cruel and dishonest if their ultimate aim is for the good of the state. It is not only acceptable but necessary to lie, to use torture, and to walk over other states and cities. Machiavellianism is defined as “A political doctrine of Machiavelli, which denies the relevance of morality in political affairs and holds that craft and deceit are justified in pursuing and maintaining political power (Def.)” This implies that in the conquest for power, the ends justify the means. This is the basis of Machiavellianism. The priority for the power holder is to keep the security of the state regardless of the morality of the means. He accepts that these things are in and of themselves morally wrong, but he points out that the consequences of failure, the ruin of states and the destruction of cities, can be far worse. Machiavelli strongly emphasizes that princes should not hesitate to use immoral methods to achieve power, if power is necessary for security and survival.
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 discusses assertive and bold ideas in “The Prince,” revealing his radical and courageous nature. His treatise is deceptively self-soliciting, because he disguises his extreme notions behind a veil of feigned expertise. His frank approach makes him appear confident and deserving of the utmost respect; however, he cautiously humbles himself by pouring immense flattery for the ruling prince into his work and, in doing so, assures protection for himself and his notorious ideas.
Machiavelli is undisputedly one of the most influential political philosophers of all time. In The Prince, his most well-known work, he relates clearly and precisely how a decisive, intelligent man can gain and maintain power in a region. This work is revolutionary because it flies in the face of the Christian morality which let the Roman Catholic Church hold onto Europe for centuries. Machiavelli's work not only ignores the medieval world's ethics: The Prince suggests actions which oppose the four most basic of Christianity's Ten Commandments.
Written almost 500 years ago, Niccolo Machiavelli’s “The Prince” brings forward a new definition of virtue. Machiavelli’s definition argued against the concept brought forward by the Catholic Church. Machiavelli did not impose any thoughts of his own, rather he wrote from his experience and whatever philosophy that lead to actions which essentially produced effective outcomes in the political scene of Italy and in other countries. While Machiavelli is still criticized for his notions, the truth is that, consciously or subconsciously we are all thinking for our own benefit and going at length to achieve it. On matters of power where there is much to gain and a lot more to lose, the concept of Machiavelli’s virtue of “doing what needs to be done” applies rigorously to our modern politics and thus “The Prince” still serves as a suitable political treatise in the 21st century.
Machiavelli’s The Prince was written more than 500 years ago and it is “one of the most influential and controversial books published in Western literature.” (Article A) It was about Machiavelli’s political philosophies and the basic principles of what he believes a politician or “prince” should be. The three main ideas of the Prince were “Liberality and Stinginess”, “Cruelty and Mercy: Is It Better to Be Loved Than Feared, or the Reverse?”, and “How a Prince Should Keep Their Promises” and for the most part many of his concepts should or are already instilled in our government.
Niccolo Machiavelli stressed that “one ought to be both feared and loved, but as it is difficult for the two to go together, it is much safer to be feared than loved…for love is held by a chain of obligation which, men being selfish, is broken whenever it serves their purpose; but fear is maintained by a dread of punishment which never fails.” He felt that a true leader must be cunning and deceptive, winning the hearts of his people through power and influence. If he could not be liked, he could at least get by knowing he has intimidated these below him into submission. However rash or cruel this may seem, Machiavelli’s argument is not one to be countered easily.
Machiavelli in his famous book “The Prince” describes the necessary characteristics for a strong and successful leader. He believes that one of the most important characteristics is to rule in favor of his government and to hold power in his hands. Power is an essential aspect of Machiavelli’s theory, and a leader should do whatever it takes to keep it for the safety of his country because “the ends justifies the means.” To attain and preserve the power, a leader should rather be feared than loved by his people, but it is vital not to be hated. As he states, “anyone compelled to choose will find far greater security in being feared than in being loved.” If a leader is feared, the people are less likely to revolt, and in the end, only a threat of punishment can guarantee obedienc...
Many empirical things can often still be debated and refuted by experts, but there is a general admittance to the idea that power is the root of many evil things. In all fairness, we must admit that a many evil things can in their essence, be great. And that is one of the many theories advanced by Niccolo Machiavelli in his well-known work, The Prince. The Prince serves a dual purpose of both teaching a person how to attain power, but also how to retain it. Incredibly enough, history has proven most of Machiavelli’s findings and theories to work well, while some have failed to effectively secure power for the rulers who did, in fact try them. His work, does obviously highlight one main fact, which is, that power is a well sought-after attribute, and most who attain are willing to do whatever is necessary to keep it.
An effective leader is one that understands that a society must evolve and revolutionize, in order to meet the needs of the state that are of immediate concern. As a society we are able to build off prior knowledge of once existing methods of living, and adjust them to meet current demands. Both Thomas Hobbes, and Nicolo Machiavelli’s concept, and perception of an ideal sovereign remains present in current forms of government. Machiavelli’s ideas in The Prince indicate that it is simple for any civilian to gain, and maintain power
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.
It is commonly believed by both lay people and political philosophers alike that an authoritative figure is good and just so long as he or she acts in accordance with various virtues. If the actions of a ruler are tailored toward the common good of the people rather than himself, then that ruler is worthy of occupying the status of authority. By acting in accordance with social and ethical norms, the ruler is deemed worthy of respect and authority. Niccolò Machiavelli challenges our moral intuitions about moral authority in his work, the Prince, by ruthlessly defending the actions made by the state in an effort to preserve power. In particular, all actions made by the state are done in order to preserve its power, and preserving the state’s power preservers its people. In doing so, whatever actions the state exercises are justified with this end goal in mind. Although such reasoning may seem radical, it is practice more readily that most people are inclined to believe. Machiavelli's moral philosophy is deeply embedded in the present day justice administration. Due to this, Machiavelli’s political thought can serve as a reference for illustrating how today’s administrators can benefit from following the examples of other great leaders, such as on matters of global warming.
Machiavelli’s ultimate goal is to inform the Prince on how to keep his principality and assure his spot. The Prince needs to maintain power and can do anything to get and keep it, as long as it doesn’t affect his subjects negatively. Some methods can be steal land, make empty promises, and cheat people in order to stay on top. Machiavelli says “The Principle foundations that all States have, as well new, as old, or mixt are good laws, and good armes; and because there cannot be good laws where there are good armes; and where there are good armes, there must be good laws.” (Letter 12) Without good armies there cannot be good laws, but if a state has a strong army, that shows the state has good laws that are enforced.It is crucial to lay down a solid foundation, because after he has spent so long clawing his way to the top, he wouldn’t want all of it come crashing down. This means eliminating rivals and winning followers. Machiavelli says “They who by fortune only becomes Princes of private men, with small pains to attain is, but have much ado to maintain themselves in it; and find no difficulty at all in the way, because they are carried thither with...