Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Importance of Philosophy
The role of power in politics
Importance of Philosophy
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Importance of Philosophy
Between the time of Machiavelli’s The Prince and Locke’s Second Treatise of
Government, the concept of government evolved greatly. There were several philosophers that
contributed their ideas and helped build the foundation for the governments we have
today.
Niccolo Machiavelli, an Italian philosopher, who lived from 1469 – 1527, became well
known with his ideas and concepts of government. Machiavelli in his book The Prince, a guide
of how to rule dedicated to Lorenzo de’ Medici, ruler of Florence at that time, clearly
exposed his concepts about what he thought a ruler had to do to be respected and admired.
Machiavelli believed that whoever possessed the power had the right to command, however,
he stated that the goodness of the ruler does not ensure power in anyway, and a good person
had no more authority by being good.
For Machiavelli, power defined political activity, and for this reason it was necessary for any
successful ruler to know how to use it. He believed that only by applying power properly
individuals could obey and the ruler could then, maintain their state safe and secure. He
thought that people abide by the rules only because they fear the consequences that will bring
them not doing so, whether it could be the loss of their own life or the privileges that they
enjoyed at that moment. He recommended the rulers that they were in a better position if they
were cruel, and that at all times they would watch for their interests first even if they had to
break the promises that they had done. He also advised them that they should avoid being
hated, and they should undertake great projects to enhance their reputation and choose wise
advisors around them.
The Prince still remai...
... middle of paper ...
...www.philosophypages.com/hy/4n.htm
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke-political/
http://www.cliffsnotes.com/study_guide/literature/The-Prince-Book-Summary.id-148.html
http://history.wisc.edu/sommerville/351/351-03.htm
http://www.lepg.org/sixteen.htm
http://www.usconstitution.net/philosophers.html
http://www.plato.stanford.edu/entries/machiavelli/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/civil_war_revolution/hobbes_01.shtml
http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/leviathan/summary.html
http://www.e-ir.info/?p=4892
http://conservapedia.com/Niccol%C3%B2_Machiavelli
http://www.timoroso.com/philosophy/machiavelli/introduction
http://law.jrank.org/pages/7374/Hobbes-Thomas.html
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza/
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Baruch_Spinoza#Modern_relevance
http://political-science.uchicago.edu/faculty-articles/spinozaarticle.pdf
...ad noble intentions and was completely loyal to the state, but in the end he is only human and his main weakness was his poor judgment.
to become leader and he began an amoral reign as he let the evil within take
A longstanding debate in human history is what to do with power and what is the best way to rule. Who should have power, how should one rule, and what its purpose should government serve have always been questions at the fore in civilization, and more than once have sparked controversy and conflict. The essential elements of rule have placed the human need for order and structure against the human desire for freedom, and compromising between the two has never been easy. It is a question that is still considered and argued to this day. However, the argument has not rested solely with military powers or politicians, but philosophers as well. Two prominent voices in this debate are Plato and Machiavelli, both of whom had very different ideas of government's role in the lives of its people. For Plato, the essential service of government is to allow its citizens to live in their proper places and to do the things that they are best at. In short, Plato's government reinforces the need for order while giving the illusion of freedom. On the other hand, Machiavelli proposes that government's primary concern is to remain intact, thereby preserving stability for the people who live under it. The feature that both philosophers share is that they attempt to compromise between stability and freedom, and in the process admit that neither can be totally had.
Machiavelli is considered one of the great early modern analyzers of political power. Born in Florence in 1469 and living until 1527, Niccolo Machiavelli experienced what we now consider the height of the Italian Renaissance-a period that produced some of Italy's greatest achievements in the arts and sciences, but that also produced horrible scandals and the establishment of foreign domination over the peninsula (Microsoft Encarta 99). He grew up during the reign of the Medici family, and he learned to read and write in Latin while he studied the classics. Humanistic ideals were popular in Florentine government, and although Machiavelli’s family was neither rich nor aristocratic, they were supporters of the city’s leading humanists. Machiavelli showed a keen interest in the world around him, and from this interest he demonstrated a remarkable ability to learn. By the age of seven he had begun his formal education, and by age twelve he had graduated from primary school and was enrolled in private classes. He was later accepted into the University of Florence where he studied humanities, literature, and sciences.
Knowing that your decision can encourage and empower others to refrain from taking part in immoral acts or it can result in everyone else conforming to the same immoral act. (Paragraph # 17)
that it is he who should be in charge, not Othello the moor. This creates an
(63) 'Once more, you are bound to maintain the imperial dignity of your city in which you all take pride; for you should not covet the glory unless you will endure the toil. And do not imagine that you are fighting about a simple issue, freedom or slavery; you have an empire to lose, and there is the danger to which the hatred of your imperial rule has exposed you. Neither can you resign your power, if, at this crisis, any timorous or inactive spirit is for thus playing the honest man. For by this time your empire has become a tyranny which in the opinion of mankind may have been unjustly gained, but which cannot be safely surrendered. The men of whom I was speaking, if they could find followers, would soon ruin a city, and if they were to go and found a state of their own, would equally ruin that. For inaction is secure only when arrayed by the side of activity; nor is it expedient or safe for a sovereign, but only for a subject state, to be a servant.
that his real aim was not to be in power but to lead the world to a
The first example we see of the leaders acting in the best interest of their country is when Caesar defeats Pompey. Commoners in the streets say they are “here to see Caesar and rejoice in his triumph.” (line 30-31, 1204). Through this we are shown that many people are happy with Caesars win over Pompey. However, we also see that Caesar could not please
Power is implied in the very essence of Machiavelli’s writing. It is tied in with the greed,
His government was the first government in Europe that presented itself as a power sure of its position and built to be definitive and progressive, and he maintained personal control over foreign affairs, regarding foreign policy as the essence of his function as a king (Hatton 3).
His father spent his life expanding and defending his young son’s future kingdom and in trying to educate his son in the art of war. The young prince however was totally uninterested in the art of war or in expanding or defending his kingdom, as is proved by the comments made to him when he is king,
... hated and should look for the love and loyalty of his people. He must learn to be strategic when it comes to getting his way. He must be view as a man of his word but also a ruler with the ability to do what needs to be done for the nation. His reputation with his people shows how his enemies must attack if he is despised by his people and view and a frivolous ruler he will be subjected to open attacks and conspiracies. While if he is shielded by the loyalty of his subjects he will be harder to over power.
A ruler should have a reputation of being generous, but not actually being generous. If you truly are generous your reputation could be damaged. A ruler who has a reputation as being generous will end up wasting all of his resources and money, causing him to tax the people to continue living plentifully. This will make the people hate him, and possibly turn against him. In the end this helps no one. “ So we see a ruler cannot seek to benefit from a reputation as a generous without harming himself” ( pg. 49) Being miserly is better than being generous. A miserly ruler may be perceived as miserly in the beginning, but he will eventually earn a reputation as being generous. A ruler who is frugal will eventually have enough money to defend himself and his people against danger, and undertake new initiatives without having to tax the people. By being miserly a ruler has greater power because he has money and with money comes great power, and with power you can dominate anything that you want, hence the phrase a person who has money is dangerous. Being mean allows a ruler to govern. This does not mean you should rob your people.