Machiavelli vs. Luther
Machiavelli and Luther have been well respected by historians from all walks of life for centuries now. They were both very outspoken in times when one's life might be the penalty for thoughts such as they expressed. However, neither seemed to be deterred by such penalties. This paper will discuss their religious views in relation to politics and western political thinking. Similarities and differences alike will be compared as well as contrasted.
Niccolo Machiavelli was born in present day Italy in the city of Florence in 1469. This is important because of the political and social atmosphere on the Italian peninsula at the time. Florence was part of the Florentine Republic, which had power throughout a good deal of the Tucson region. The prospect for unity at the time was non- existent and Machiavelli was greatly disturbed by that.
Machiavelli seemed to give a certain amount of respect to the religious rulers of the time and throughout history. He made a great number of comments about the way in which these rulers manipulated the people through religion. It's as if he was laughing at the people for being so ignorant as not to realize the way they'd been manipulated. Furthermore, it is as if he was congratulating the rulers for being smart enough to con the people with the fear of a higher being. "Numa, finding the people ferocious and desiring to reduce them to civic obedience by means of the arts of peace, turned to religion as the instrument necessary above all others for the maintenance of a civilized state, and so constituted it that there was never for so many centuries so great a fear of God as there was in this republic". (Mac. p 139) For lack of a better word, Machiavelli is basically calling Numa's intentions a 'crock'. Religion claims to be good in nature. However, in this situation it was used for population control. "…its citizens were more afraid of breaking an oath than breaking the law, since they held in higher esteem the power of God than the power of man". (Mac. p 139) This is a great quote because it illustrates Machiavelli's view on religion perfectly; he believed that it was a tool to control the masses from the beginning of religion. Why should anyone listen to an ordinary man?
This compare and contrast essay will focus on the views of leadership between Mirandolla and Machiavelli. Mirandolla believes that leadership should not be false and that it should follow the rule of reason. He believes that leaders should strive for the heavens and beyond. On the other hand, Machiavelli believed that leadership comes to those who are crafty and forceful. He believed that leaders do not need to be merciful, humane, faithful or religious; they only need to pretend to have all these qualities. Despite both of them being philosophers, they have drastically different views on leadership, partially because of their views on religion are different. Mirandolla was very religious, and Machiavelli was a pragmatist, which means that he was not interested in religion.
During the Reformation, both Martin Luther and King Henry VIII desired to reform the Church, but in substantially different ways, and for very different reasons. While Martin Luther wanted reform in order to achieve freedom from the Roman Catholic Church, Henry VIII solely wanted reform for personal reasons and to gain power. Luther acted towards the good of all and Henry VIII acted towards the good of himself.
During colonial times, King George III was a tyrant ruler. He was unstable and constantly inflicted hardship upon the people of the American Colonies. King George III thought that imposing more demands on the colonists would allow him to reach his goals such as bringing in more money for the British government. Machiavelli, on the other hand, thought that a ruler needed his subjects to be on his side so that there would be less resistance.
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.
In the end, although they come from two very different ends of the spectrum, free will and the secular state are places of common ground for Machiavelli and Luther, which is supported by their similar views of human nature and the order of how things should be. It is interesting that when each of their viewpoints is applied to the Catholic Church, it reveals a very different view of the Catholic Church; although Machiavelli would view it positively and Luther negatively, the juxtaposition truly emphasizes the success of Machiavelli's strategies. Although Luther's work did have an impact on the Church, it still continues to thrive. It is interesting that for two authors who have many similar views there would be a serious conflict in this area.
Niccolo Machiavelli was born in Florence, Italy in 1469 to a middleclass family. The time in which Machiavelli lived Italy as a country was not united but divide and split into little providences and republics. He latter became responsible for the Florentine militia against the Medici government and rule. When the Medici power reclaimed Florence Machiavelli was arrested for conspiracy he was tortured and then banished from Florence. During his banishment he wrote the book The Prince in 1513 which is dedicated to the new prince of Florence Lorenzo De Medici. The book was a discourse to the prince on how to run a country and also a way Machiavelli can get a job working in politics again.
Machiavelli’s advice to a prince who wanted to hold power is that they have to instill fear into the people. He believes fear is important because it restrains men, as they fear being punished. Love will never help you hold power because it attaches people to promises. Machiavelli believes that since humans are wicked, they will break these promises whenever their interests is at stake. Men will devote everything to you if you serve their interests, but as soon as you need help, they turn on you. Therefore, creating fear in them is the perfect strategy. I feel like Machiavelli is being sarcastic and did this to get attention. He knew his way of thinking was different and would get the attention of the people.
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.
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’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...
In Julius Caesar, Machiavellian traits are manifested through multiple characters. Those characters who obeyed Machiavelli’s guidance were successful in achieving their goals; those who did not conform to the recommendations failed. Machiavelli teaches tactics to achieve a goal, regardless whether or not these tactics are humane. On the other hand, religious books teach compassion and kindness. In short, one perspective is, to get ahead, people must drop all humane beliefs and focus solely on their aspirations.
The sections that I will be presenting are 73, 74, and 75. I will discuss the political ideas of Niccolo Machiavelli, Francesco Guicciardini, and Thomas Hobbes during the time of Florence Republic. First, Niccolo Machiavelli was born in Florence, Italy in 1469 at a time when the country was in political upheaval. Italy was divided between four dominant city-states, by which each of them was always at the mercy of the continual changing of princes and governments.
Martin Luther is viewed as of Western history’s most significant figures in his fight for equality and civil rights.Initially, Luther, born in Germany spent his early years in relative anonymity where he was a monk and also a scholar. However, it is his contribution and scholarly work in 1517 that Luther is mostly renowned for. He wrote a document that was attacking the then Catholic Church’s corrupt practice. This practice was in the form of selling different indulgences to absolve sins that the church believed was a common attribute in the society (Ziegler and Bentley 55). His scholarly document was named the “95 Theses”. The document provided and discussed two central beliefs. One of the central
Niccolo Machiavelli was a political philosopher from Florence, Italy. The period that Machiavelli lived in was the "rebirth" of art in Italy and rediscovery of ancient philosophy, literature and science. He wrote The Prince, in which he discusses the proper way of living as a prince. His ideas, which were not viewed as beneficial at the time, were incredibly cynical and took time for the rest of the population to really catch onto the ideas. Machiavelli’s view of human nature was that humans are born evil, and while they can show good traits, and the common man is not to be trusted. Unlike Confucius, Machiavelli believes that human nature cannot be changed, and unlike Plato, where Plato believes in humans as social beings. Each respected view
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.