Political order, or the success and security of the state, has a role of the utmost importance in Niccolò Machiavelli’s The Prince, so much so that it becomes sacred, taking over the role of religion in the state. Like the Catholic Church, political order encompasses every aspect of the life of the state, for it is the foundation off of which all princes form their acts, and like a god it defines what is good and what is evil. But though it is clear in The Prince that political order takes up a sacred role in the state, Machiavelli is not discrediting Christianity, but merely setting it up as secondary to political order. In other words, political order is a religion more powerful than Christianity, though the two co-exist in the state. I will …show more content…
But this power becomes sacred when one examines the role of the Church in the state. Machiavelli describes the Church’s power as the power of princes in ecclesiastical properties. He explains that “these princes alone have states and do not defend them; have subjects and do not govern them” (Machiavelli 40) and that they are “so powerful and of such a quality that they keep their princes in power no matter how they act” (40). Here, Machiavelli is stressing how the ecclesiastical principalities has a powerful, all-encompassing presence in the state, and that they are so rooted within the state that they cannot be resisted. Thus, there is no doubt that the role of political order in the state is sacred like the Church, for political order permeates the state in the actions of its ruler, the prince, while the Church encompasses society through its powerful and unresisted ecclesiastical …show more content…
Yet once one reads The Prince it becomes clear that the latter is true: for Machiavelli, political order is a religion more powerful than Christianity, though the two co-exist in the state. Machiavelli’s response to the problem that “the affairs of this world are controlled by Fortune and by God” (Machiavelli 84) is that such divine forces are the “arbiter of one half of our actions” (84), leaving “the control of the other half, or almost that, to us” (84). To put it simply, divine forces do not have complete control over the will of humankind and of princes, though they do have some influence. Thus, it is clear that Machiavelli’s state is not an atheistic one, for he accepts that divine influence plays some part, yet “God does not wish to do everything, in order not to take from us our free will” (88). But it is clear that political order has more power over the Church of God. As has been said, political order permeates the state in imitation of the sacred Church, and it is the divine judge of good and evil, of virtuous and unvirtuous. But in addition, when Machiavelli discusses the future leader of Italy he declares, “the Church, of which it [Italy’s leader] is now prince” (88). By describing the ruler of Italy as the prince of the Church, Machiavelli
The Church dominated political thought through thinkers such as Augustine and Aquinas. In The Prince and The Discourses, Machiavelli breaks from the early Christian tradition of thinkers such as Augustine in his work City of God. Augustine lays out the characteristics of a good Christian leader while Machiavelli issues a scathing criticism of such characteristics and the Christian faith in general. Augustine takes a moral approach while Machiavelli remains rather pragmatic in his approach.
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 wants a prince to place himself above his subjects, act deceptively whenever necessary, but also maintain the front of a religious man. This appearance would allow the prince to manipulate the church in Florence if believed and done well, thereby granting the prince ultimate power. This idea, combined with the other two, make Machiavelli appear exceptionally audacious and distinctive. This courageous move allows Machiavelli the possibility of becoming famous, with little risk of repercussion — especially since he ensures to protect himself with cautious humility intertwined throughout his
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.
Possibly the most controversial book ever written, The Prince by Machiavelli, focuses on how a Prince or leader should rule. Many of the techniques that are stated in the text have caused many debates ever since it’s publication. When Machiavelli composed the Prince, his contemporaries were shocked at the ideas and themes presented. The Prince introduced a whole new way of thinking that was almost completely contrary to present beliefs. For that reason, in 1559 the Pope banned the printing of the Prince and the rest of Machiavelli’s writings.
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.
In The Prince, Niccolo Machiavelli thoroughly discusses the critical role religion plays in the formation and maintenance of political authority within a system. He further states that religion is a beneficiary in establishing political authority and urges political leaders to endorse and support religion for them to maintain power. Machiavelli says that although the political authority must strive to remain secular, abhorring any form of religious influence, it needs to appear quite the opposite to the perceptions of citizens. The government needs to utilize faith-based organizations to keep the people pious by instilling the fear of God rather than that of the state to prevent the people from despising the leader. In turn, doing all these
In secular democracies, power is necessarily derived from the will of the governed. That power is then entrusted to a leader, who Machiavelli would understand to be a "prince". Inherently, his book, The Prince, has been close at hand for most politicians for centuries, as it provides general, historically proven advice for principalities and republics on how to govern and maintain relations with their most important resource and the very core of their power, which would be the people themselves.
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.
“The Prince”, by Niccolo Machiavelli, is a series of letters written to the current ruler of Italy, Lorenzo de’ Medici. These letters are a “how-to” guide on what to do and what not to do. He uses examples to further express his views on the subject. The main purpose was to inform the reader how to effectively rule and be an acceptable Prince. Any ruler who wishes to keep absolute control of his principality must use not only wisdom and skill, but cunning and cruelness through fear rather than love. Machiavelli writes this book as his summary of all the deeds of great men.
The Prince by Niccolò Machiavelli isn't about one man's ways to feed his power hungry mindset through gluttony, nor is it just explaining altercations between a nation's states. This writing is regarding to how one's self-confidence can make them become powerful in a society and also, the way morals and politics differ and can be separate in a government. Originally, Machiavelli wrote The Prince to gain support from Lorenzo de' Medici, who during the era, was governor of Florence. As meant as writing for how a society should be run, this book has been read by many peoples around the world who want to have better knowledge of the perfect stability of beliefs and politics required to run a good civilization.
Niccolò Machiavelli wrote, in his novel The Prince, that strong central political leadership was more important than anything else, including religion and moral behavior. Machiavelli, writing during a period of dramatic change known as the Italian Renaissance, displayed attitudes towards many issues, mostly political, which supported his belief that strong government was the most important element in society. These attitudes and ideas were very appropriate for the time because they stressed strong, centralized power, the only kind of leadership that seemed to be working throughout Europe, and which was the element Italy was lacking. Machiavelli understood that obtaining such a government could not be done without separating political conduct and personal morality, and suggested that the separation be made. The Prince, written to the Medici family over five hundred years ago contained many truths, so universal and accurate that they still influence politics today.