“Although one should not reason about Moses, as he was a mere executor of things that had been ordered for him by God, nonetheless he should be admired if only for that grace which made him so deserving of speaking with God” (22). In the context of The Prince, this statement proves to be duplicitous because Machiavelli claims that he will not reason about Moses, but then uses the following pages to do precisely that. Furthermore, Machiavelli draws extensively from the actions of Moses and the Old Testament God, although Machiavelli is often regarded as an antagonist of the Church. Machiavelli’s handbook for princes consists of concrete advice for rulers that directly reflect the more abstracted stories in Exodus. For instance, Machiavelli’s description of human nature in The Prince mirrors Moses’ experiences as the leader of the Israelites in Exodus. Furthermore, Machiavelli models his guidelines for controlling the fundamentally difficult nature of humanity off of Moses.
Machiavelli’s bleak assessment of humans, that they are generally “ungrateful, fickle, pretenders and dissemblers,” articulates the experiences of Moses in leading the Israelites (66). While the Old Testament never objectively declares anything about human nature, its depiction of God’s “chosen ones” reveals its perspective on people. For example, after Moses rescues the Israelites from centuries of slavery, a lack of water causes them to “quarrel” with Moses, asking: “‘Why did you bring us up out of
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
• Thomas used Aristotle’s view of natural law to justify the authority of the Roman Catholic Church in political as well as religious matters. For the purpose of explaining the fundamental reasons of law he used Aristotle’s philosophy and added the use of an eternal ruler. John Locke • John Locke had a distinct influence on the writers of the American Constitution by advocating for human rights and liberty through democracy. In saying so, he believed that the mass majority of ordinary people can be capable of giving consent to their governor/ruler as opposed to the Monarch government. However if the ruler did not comply with the needs of the people, Locke believed that the public had the justified right to rebel.
Machiavelli also says that any time a person does anything that does not overtly benefit them there is an underlying reason that gives said person some sort of gain. This is a fair assumption to make because sometimes this is the truth, but we are not biologically hardwired to do this, it is not within our nature and therefore it cannot be a law. One might claim that, with the introduction of capitalism and society, some are able to overcome instinct to be more self beneficial while some are not, and this is true, but not all are able to do so in every circumstance, for instance not everyone would kill someone else for personal gain, only a select few would, and it proves that it is impossible to predict what any person or a population would do since some can overcome instinct but
Clinton’s Failure As “Prince” In Machiavelli 's " The Prince" numerous rules were presented as to what a ruler should do to succeed. From ruling with an iron fist to protecting their country 's citizens, a ruler has no choice but to be on his best mindset at all times. Machiavelli made it very clear that a fit ruler must have military experience, take religion seriously, and have the support of his own people. Usually, leaders follow these rules whole-heartedly to make sure they are represented positively and are taken seriously.
The specific reason that Michiavelli might have had to create "The Prince" are unknown. Some theorize that he wrote out of resentment after being banished from holding political office. Where he may have written for resentment he may also have written to impress his superiors in a desire to gain reinstatement. Uncertain of his intentions, the possibility that the book was written to retain face value and document what Michavelli believed to be the "wickedness" of man.
Machiavelli's The Prince was one of the first humanist works of the Renaissance. In fact it is a show-stopper, a literary masterpiece of sorts. Yet this work has been eagerly bantered throughout the hundreds of years and stays a standout amongst the most controversial bits of composing today. Albeit numerous faultfinders consider The Prince a parody, essentially an attempt to uncover the issues with the decision class, most see Machiavelli's act as a genuine attempt to lay the foundation for the reunification of Italy under the Medici family of Florence. Machiavelli's thought that the model prince ought to utilize a variety of strategies to secure his energy in particular that the end justifies the methods is the most controversial issue brought
Machiavelli opens The Prince with a dedication to Lorenzo ‘The Magnificent’ de Medici. Machiavelli adopts a remarkably deferential tone which highlights the power gap between himself and the ruler of Florence. The author emphasizes his social inferiority and presents his writing as beneath Medici “I judge this work unworthy to come into your presence” (10). Yet, Machiavelli aims to legitimize his counsel to the eyes of Medici for advising him is the highest political position that Machiavelli may aspire to reach for he was born a commoner. With that in mind, the author underlines that Medici would benefit from the outlook of a well-read ordinary citizen like Machiavelli.
The Prince and the Discourses, by Machiavelli as a gift to the prince. Because it was the best thing that Niccolo Machiavelli could give to him. He was trying to teach the prince ways to stay in power. Machiavelli even stated it himself “I can consider of this subject, discussing what a principality is, the variety of such states, how they are won, how they are held, and how they are lost” (Machiavelli xxiv). The main focus of his work was with monarchies because he did not care for republics.
Both of these highly influential authors had different opinions on ruling that would shape how people would rule during their time and for rulers to come. One of Machiavelli’s major points in The Prince was that it was better to be feared than to be loved. He said this was because while both ways can be useful tools to help one rule, men are less likely to turn a ruler if they were afraid of punishment. Machiavelli had little faith in the common man and had this to say about them, “They are ungrateful, fickle, deceptive and deceiving, avoiders of dangers, eager to gain”(pg.353).
In The Prince (1532), Machiavelli lists elements a prince should have. The biggest thing Machiavelli cautions against is breeding hatred. He claims that “[…] a wise prince should establish himself on that which is in his own control and not in that of others; he must endeavor only to avoid hatred” (Machiavelli 82). Hatred will lead to loss of control. If the civilians hate the prince, then they have control over him.
Renaissance means rebirth. The Renaissance was a time of renewal as well as of chaos in Europe since it was still recovering. More and more ideas of the ideal prince emerged, as there are many different city-states. One of the most noteworthy political philosophers of the sixteenth century was Niccólo Machiavelli whose book, The Prince, a political handbook for rulers, has brought him recognition. It can be seen that his ideas on politics and overall inspiration for the book mainly came from his views of the political problems that were taking place.
The Prince, written by Machiavelli, is a candid outline of how he believes leaders gain and keep power. Machiavelli uses examples of past leaders to determine traits that are necessary to rule successfully. Leaders such as the King of Naples and the Duke of Milan lacked military power, made their subjects hate them, or did not know how to protect themselves from the elite, causing them to lose power. He says that these rulers should blame laziness, not luck, for their failures. By looking at these historical successes and failures, Machiavelli is able to develop his own thoughts on how politics and leaders should be in the future.
In Machiavelli’s book, The Prince, he maintains a harsh perspective on reality. His advice on how to maintain power leaves no room for compassion or generousity. While some may believe that these are qualities of a good person, Machiavelli believes these qualities lead to the downfall of rulers. He acknowledges that, in reality, it is impossible for someone to have qualities of a good person and simultaneously a good ruler. Machiavelli’s realistic outlook causes him to emphasize that it is better to maintain power through fear, rather than compassion.
According to Machiavelli, ideal prince is a risk-taker who puts a military on action, as the people respect the warrior. An ideal prince thinks for himself rather than relying on others, knows how to read characters, and does not surround himself with flatterers. He lives in reality, not fantasy. He works hard, utilizes his own mind, and makes survival of his guide. The ideal leader is neither loved nor hated, but respected.
I. Machiavelli In his famous work the Prince Niccolo Machiavelli exposes what it takes to be a good prince and how only this good price and keep control over his state. There are many different qualities that make a man a good ruler but there are some that are more essential than others. In this work Machiavelli stresses the importance of being a warrior prince, a wise prince, and knowing how to navigate the duality of virtù and vices. Without these attributes there was no way that a prince could hold together their state and their people.
Being a prince is not as easy as it may seem. There are good and bad decisions a prince can make. Machiavelli has his own standards on how a prince should behave. According to Machiavelli, a prince could be considered a lion, a fox, or a wolf. The lion is fierce but doesn’t have the smarts, while a fox has the smarts but isn 't fierce.