Machiavelli’s The Prince has been widely interpreted as representative of political behavior that is violent and deceitful. As such, the term Machiavellian has to come to be associated with deviousness, ruthlessness, and power politics. The issue of whether or not Machiavelli can be considered a Machiavellian himself is difficult to resolve because of the complexity of the arguments he puts forth in both The Prince and Discourses. While the claims made in the former are more focused on the individual, namely the “prince,” those posited in the latter describe phenomena on a broader spectrum, having to do with human nature and society at large. Despite the different emphases in these works, Machiavelli’s explications of his theories of politics, nature, and humans in each of them are both consistent and intelligible. The difficulty in answering this question of whether or not Machiavelli can be considered Machiavellian then does not stem from a simple incoherence in his writing. Instead the real reason this question is difficult to answer is because Machiavelli himself reframes what it means to be moral. His claims indeed represent a shift away from classical notions of morality, largely emanating from Aristotelian and Christian foundations, thus invalidating–or at least reframing–the question at hand. Aristotle provides us with a moral philosophy that is no longer centered on the private sphere, but one that instead gravitates toward the public and political spheres. It is partly for this reason that Machiavelli is often misunderstood as unconditionally supporting violent and deceitful acts. The reality is that Machiavelli should instead be seen as somewhat of a messenger of his time. Through his works, he depicts the re...
... middle of paper ...
... Similarly, the future is not dictated by these external forces; the direction of individual human life and collective societal well-being is dictated exclusively by humans. New crises, events, scares, or social movements are then all considered new developments on a political and historical timeline. His notion of political history then lends itself to his theory of what constitutes a good ruler, specifically with regards to what one such ruler would do when reacting to such unplanned developments: a good ruler must learn from the past in order to deal with present circumstances. Machiavelli considers this capacity of a ruler to anticipate and have foresight as part of a larger prerequisite to become a good ruler–virtue; “a ruler who cannot foresee evil consequences before they have time to develop is not truly wise; but few have such wisdom” (The Prince 45).
Niccolo Machiavelli believes in a strong government. The leader should be strong and feared. I believe he gets this idea from the fear of God; no one is supposed to question God because he is so feared, and in the same sense, no one should question a strong leader. Machiavelli realizes that the leader should be feared, but not hated. A hated leader will probably be killed in a rebellion. One also can not be loved. Any compassion towards your citizens will make them believe you are weak, and they will rebel. He thinks a very strong military is necessary at all times, and that powerful arms should be available and in hand. This idea is similar to that of right wing America and our friends, the National Rifle Association, who believe assault rifles are America’s pastime. The nation should always be prepared for war, and should always be searching for new lands to conquer. T...
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.
First, Machiavelli’s method attempts to discard discussion of the “imaginary” political world and instead focuses on “real life” (Machiavelli 48). His end goal is to construct rubric for leaders to follow either to rule and unite (in this case Italy) in the Prince or create a powerful republic in the Discourses. His method is derived from comparing contemporary and historical events to illustrate and substantiate his argument. He is critical of how people interpret history (Machiavelli 83). He still believes that his ability to interpret and compare history is superior. Arguing that his methodological approach doesn’t just “chew” on history but actually “tastes” it (Machiavelli 83). Therefore we can understand that he justifies his method approach as not being akin to most because he possesses a much deeper understanding of history. Throughout his two books using ...
Michael Walzer stated in his article Dirty Hand that ‘It is easy to get one’s hands dirty in politics and it is often right to do so”. What important here is that the objectives of politicians getting dirty hands, Machiavelli argued in his book The Prince that if the ruler wants to conserve his position he must need to act badly, if its needed. However, the objective that Machiavelli suggests the politicians to do bad is the purpose of controlling his power for his own private interest, but not the for the good of the public and the state.
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 believes that a government should be very structured, controlled, and powerful. He makes it known that the only priorities of a prince are war, the institutions, and discipline. His writings describes how it is more important for a prince to be practical than moral. This is shown where he writes, "in order to maintain the state he is often obliged to act against his promise, against charity, against humanity, and against religion" (47). In addition, Machiavelli argues that a prince may have to be cunning and deceitful in order to maintain political power. He takes the stance that it is better for the prince to be feared than loved. His view of how a government should run and his unethical conduct are both early signs of dictatorship.
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.
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.
For all of Machiavelli’s ruthlessness and espousal of deceit, he knew the value of authenticity and relying on his administration. A true leader cannot achieve greatness alone. Machiavelli says that the prince is the state, and the state is the prince. This means that whatever vision and principles the leader holds in the highest regard, they must be known to the state so that they can be realized. He believed that no matter how a prince was elected, his success would depend largely on his ministers. Collaboration between a prince and ministers would create an atmosphere of harmony and camaraderie, highly reducing the chances of rebellion. Without the support and cooperation of the people, military action is not possible, expansion is not possible and most importantly, governance is not possible. If a leader does not satisfy the needs of the people, they have the power to overthrow him through strength in numbers. Thus, a leader depends just as much on the people as they do on him. A leader must be able to convince the people to buy into his visio...
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.
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.
Machiavelli believed that, ethics and morality were considered in other categories than those generally known. He does not deny the existence of, but did not see how they can be useful in its traditional sense as in politics and in the government of the people. According to Machiavelli, a man is by nature a political angry and fearful. Machiavelli had no high opinion of the people. It is assumed that a person is forced to be good and can get into the number of positive features, such as prudence and courage. The prince can only proceed gently and with love, because that would undermine the naivety of his rule, and hence and the well-being of the state. He thought that, the Lord must act morally as far as possible, immorally to the extent to
Throughout the years many rulers and princes have strived to be the best. The book some believe set the standards for a prince is Niccolo Machiavelli's "The Morals of a Prince." Machiavelli states "Hence it is necessary for a prince wishing to hold his own to know how to do wrong, and to make use of it or not according to necessity" proving that he believes it vital for a prince to know wrong in order to thrive and flourish (Machiavelli 331). Machiavelli undoubtedly has key points that reveal his feelings about being a successful, wrong prince. However, at times his ideology can be rather harsh.
In The Prince, Machiavelli explains several principles for a leader to follow and establishes that is better to feared than loved if one cannot balance both. A ruler that is well-loved is not always respected and can easily lose control of his people, especially when others have devious motives. By drilling fear and avoiding hatred from one’s subjects, a leader is able to stay in power and at the same time still have the respect of his people. As a leader there will always be adversities, and doing what is best for the state of affairs should always come first. There is nothing worse than obtaining the detestation of the people, and ultimately losing control of power. When it comes to leadership, one was must be feared, but also gain the respect of those around him. When a ruler is worried about their constituents, this allows vulnerability to seep in and control their thoughts. An individual in power does not need love to oversee and direct others, however, there is nothing wrong with being admired and respected as a leader.