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).
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.
Dante Alighieri’s Inferno and Niccolo Machiavelli’s The Prince are both works which rose out of the religiously-minded culture of Italy; but other than that, the two, in terms of message, seem to be as different as night and day, for each is distinct from the other in the how it presents the nature of morality to its readers. To Dante, morality is set-in-stone, something that is absolute in nature and directly correlated with the maintenance of public order; Machiavelli, on the other hand, presents morality as being flexible in nature, a mere institution that is, ultimately, in the eyes of the beholder, as well as one that has no real weight in real world affairs, except for when it can be used to one’s benefit. But while on the surface these two moral guidelines seem so different from one another, they are, in essence, similar for one reason: both of them, despite sprouting from different time periods, highlight how morality is problematic. So, in short, despite the differences in how the two works treat the issue of morality, they both raise questions on the best—or wisest—way in which to live one’s life.
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
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
Machiavelli approaches the topic of political morality in a completely different way than many of the thinkers that preceded him. Instead of beginning with the way things should be under ideal conditions, he goes straight for reality and observes what he believes to be brutality and savagery being played out in politics. Machiavelli reasons that politics is war, no matter which way you cut it. ?Thus, you must know that there are two kinds of combat: one with laws, the other with force. The first is proper to man, the second to beasts; but because the first is often not enough, one must have recourse to the second.? (Machiavelli, p.69). Notice that ?laws? are a type of combat. Again, Machiavelli swerves away from the path that many thinkers would take at this point. Instead of launching a criticism of m...
A philosopher puts a microscope to the nature of the world. Niccolò Machiavelli was a philosopher and the essence of his posthumous discourse The Prince revolves around the nature of princes and their education. This is why the core of his teaching is that a prince should ruthlessly acquire and maintain power by using fear, his own arms, and a strategic combination of vice and virtue instead of fortune. Cesare Borgia, an armed non-prophet, used fear and his own armed forces to successfully maintain his empire. However, Machiavelli felt that his rise to power through fortune made his fall from power inevitable. Moses, an armed prophet, used virtue instead of fortune and the fear of God to conquer the enslaved people of Egypt. Thus, by Machiavelli’s
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.
...some of the concepts in Machiavelli’s The Prince outdated. The advice the book offers, though it is hardly any more useful to us today than in the past, cannot be denied of Machiavelli’s rules that do work. However, we need to realize since when has there been a mystery about winning a fight by being the one to throw the first punch or fighting dirty, it is the problem of playing within the rules that makes winning difficult. Further, we can see that once it had all been said and done, there has been a huge transitional change in politics, economics and peace among countries. Machiavelli wrote this book during the renaissance times, although The Prince offers meaningful insight in to specific situations as well as a look into concepts of war from a different perspective, a modern scholar cannot use it to show examples that are bestowed upon us in the 21st century.
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 has long been required reading for everyone intrested in politics and power. In The Prince Niccolo M
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.
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 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