More handpicked essays just for you.
Machiavelli's political ideas
Machiavelli's political ideas
Political philosophy of Thomas Niccolo Machiavelli
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
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. The first concept which was “Liberality and Stinginess” has an underlying main idea that a Prince cannot be truly virtuous for “true virtue is not seen and has no …show more content…
While “every sensible prince wishes to be considered, merciful and not cruel”(pg. 35), one should learn to be merciful in moderation. Not doing so can lead to unintended effects where if you are too “good” it can lead to being taken advantage of, or to “uprisings and civil war” because then you will be looked at as a pushover by your citizens and other neighboring countries. Therefore if you were to be cruel, people will fear you enough to, in theory, not go against you and stay united. But I think this concept seems more like a dictatorship, which thrives on citizens fear, and I don’t think it should be instilled in our government considering that most dictatorships end poorly and lead to more uprisings and civil war than with a merciful leader. And this is why the question in this section on whether it is better to be feared or loved also comes up. Machiavelli believes that a prince should find a balance of being both feared and loved and in general just try to escape hatred. If you are loved by your people, rarely will they betray you, but it is also good to be feared by other nations so that you are not looked upon as a target. So in this section of the prince I think the concept of ruling only on fear should not be used, however I do think that a leader should try balance being loved and
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.
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
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 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.
Would you rather be feared or loved in a position of authority? According to Machiavelli it is "much safer to be feared than to be loved’. Machiavelli was an Italian historian amongst many other things during the late 15th century. He wrote about political topics which have made their way into current times and are still relatable topics and pieces of advice. The pieces Machiavelli wrote can be considered as very influential works. In specific the topics brought up in the “Qualities of the Prince” can still to this day be translated and interpreted and applied to life today. I agree with Machiavelli that as a person in an authoritative position is more likely to be successful when feared rather than an over accommodating leader
The subject of human nature has great emphasis in “The Prince”. Human beings are viewed as rational decision makers who try to maximize their self-interest. They are inclined to help whoever will give them the most benefits and by definition, may easily betray someone to whom they were previously loyal seeing a better opportunity. A large part of being a prince or a politician is being able to lead people, and therefore it is of utter importance in how to deal with their behavior. “Here a question arises: whether it is better to be loved than feared, or the reverse. The answer is, of course, that it would be best to be both loved and feared. But since the two rarely come together, anyone compelled to choose will fin...
In The Prince, Machiavelli separates ethics from politics. His approach to politics, as outlined in The Prince, is strictly practical. Machiavelli is less concerned with what is right and just, and instead with what will lead to the fortification of the government and the sustainment of power. Machiavelli believed that a ruler should use any means necessary to obtain and sustain power. He says, “…people judge by outcome. So if a ruler wins wars and holds onto power, the means he has employed will always be judged honorable, and everyone will praise them” (Machiavelli, 55). According to Machiavelli, the ends of an action justify the means (Machiavelli, 55). His motivation for these views in The Prince was the reunification of the Italian city-states (Machiavelli, 78-79). Machiavelli wanted Italy to return to its glory of the Roman Empire (Machiavelli 78-79). Some of the beliefs of Machiavelli could be perceived as evil and cruel, but he found them necessary. Machiavelli was not concerned with making people happy. His purpose was outcome and success, and in his opinion, the only way to be successful was to be realistic. These views of Machiavelli could classify him as one of the earliest modern
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...
He says that when a prince is elected by the people, then he will be alone in the throne and with only a few people ready to obey. I don’t find the difference here because in one, the prince has to please the nobility who put them in the throne, and in the other, the prince will have no little or no friends from the nobility because he is from the people. A prince better not lose the support of the people who put him there or he will be completely alone. A prince can live with the same people but he is not obliged to have the same nobility always. He should be able to take away the nobles’ authority whenever he wants. Nobles who are more using a prince to achieve their own desires rather than loyalty should be treated as enemies. In summary, a wise prince should make the people feel the need of a state and him so they will always be faithful to
As he begins to conclude, Machiavelli states that the prince: “should think about avoiding those things which make him hated and despised.” (Mach 48) Although these lack any withstanding moral values, they are effective in the sense that they better serve their purpose. Machiavelli was seeking to display a way to hold political power by any means possible not a utopian state. This may mean malicious acts, imprisonment, and torture, or it may mean the utilization of power to achieve a common good. Machiavelli doesn’t elaborate on this. He concentrates on a realistic approach towards government, as he remains concerned with the establishment and protection of power.
In recent history, the last fifty years or so, modern businessmen and politicians have given Machiavelli a Renaissance of his own. Professional politicians have written novels they claim to be on the same philosophical level of Machiavelli’s The Prince. Gary Hart, in his book The Patriot: An Exhortation to Liberate America From the Barbarians attempts to update Niccolo to the modern age with his own political philosophies, and attempts to credit Machiavelli by quoting him frequently. “Hart makes an effort to mimic the form, if not the spirit, of the most famous work by his Florentine ‘mentor.’…There is a dedicatory le...
Machiavelli remains one of the controversial figures of political history. One of his works, The Prince (also known as "A Handbook for Dictators"), contains many references...
Vice must not be criticized if it will benefit the state as a whole and virtue must be ridden if it will be harmful to the prince and his state. All virtuous actions are mitigated by the quality of their efficiency. Chapter XVI of The Prince focuses on the virtue of liberality or generosity and how much it is beneficial for the prince. Machiavelli warns rulers against wasting their wealth on extravagant and unnecessary things purely to show their wealth, for this will negatively affect the citizens. Using Pope Julius II as an example, he observes how new princes must appear generous while they are securing a firm base, but once they have established their power, they should limit their
According to Niccolo Machiavelli “if you have to make a choice, to be feared is much safer than to be loved” (225). Machiavelli was the first philosopher of the Renaissance, and wrote The Prince which argued that leaders must do anything necessary to hold on to power. The main reason it is better to be feared is because men are evil, rotten and will only do things that benefit themselves. Men only think of themselves and it is for this reason fear can control them and keep them loyal to a leader. Since loyalty through love can be easily broken because it involves no punishment, loyalty through fear is the better choice because it involves the “dread of punishment, from which [the subjects] can never escape” (Machiavelli 226). Machiavelli goes on to say that the great leader Hannibal took control of his immense army, because the soldiers saw Hannibal as a fearsome and cruel person, thus, making them loyal to him. Machiavelli in addition gives an example of a leader who chose not to be feared and cruel: “Scipio, an outstanding man not only among those of his own time, but in all recorded history; yet his armies revolted in Spain, for no other reason than his excessive leniency in allowing his soldiers more freedom than military discipline permits”(226). Failure to be cruel and fearsome will cause a leader to lose control of his soldiers, and it will cause the leader’s soldiers to revolt. Hannibal was the better leader; even though he was cruel, he was more merciful in reality than Scipio because he did not allow any disorders to happen.