Machiavelli argues the perfect prince will be both feared and loved by his people, and if unable to be both he will make himself feared and not hated. Machiavelli believes it is much safer to be feared than to be loved because people are less likely to offend and stand up against strong characters, also people are less concerned in offending a prince who has made himself loved. Accordingly, Machiavelli believes generosity is harmful to your reputation and the choice between being generous or stingy, merciful or cruel, honest or deceitful, should only be important if it aids the prince in political power. All in all, Machiavelli believes the ruler must be a great deceiver and do what is essential to uphold power over the
If we are interested in practicing the virtues, is important to define virtuous conduct. Consider the vice that exists in both excess and deficiency. While bravery is a virtue of character, one can act with too much bravery, and be reckless, or too little bravery, and be cowardly. Virtuous conduct lies in finding the mean: “The manner one ought is both a mean and the best thing, which is what belongs to virtue” (29:1106b23-24). This principle lies at the heart of the great-souled man, the first of Aristotle’s peaks of humanly excellence.
The Age of Absolutism was a period of prosperity in Europe during the 16th and 17th centuries. While at this time many countries had absolute rulers, these rulers were able to make a lot of progress in advancing their nations. These rulers are some of the greatest rulers these countries have ever had and helped lead to the prosperity of this era.
What exactly is a good leader and how should they be? In the readings, by Christine de Pizan The Treasure of the City of Ladies and another by Niccolo Machiavelli The Prince. They both talk about how a prince and a princess should act upon their people. For Pizan she talks about how a princess should be kind hearted and accepting towards her people. She should act like this sho that they will help her whenever she is need. Then for Machiavelli he talks about how a prince should show no fear instead for him to show that he is the one with power. That a prince's people should fear him. Both authors go on to talk on how their people react based on the prince and princesse act. The authors then go on to explain how they should view and run their people. Both authors also reflect the fact that the way their people are going to act towards them is mainly based off of how they treat them. The authors go into how gender plays a big role on how they should act upon their people and how their people should accept them. There are many factors that go towards one being a good leader or a bad leader. That is what exactly the authors Pizan and Machiavelli explained in their readings.
These ideas of Machiavelli are shown in his text ‘The Prince’. His view on politics strongly influenced the ideas of English political philosopher Thomas Hobbes (Sullivan, 2004). In Hobbes’ book ‘Leviathan’ he further claims that politics is based upon self-interest; that is inevitable to avoid conflicts. Both Machiavelli and Hobbes thought that politics is about power and self-interest. These two prominent philosophers well explain what politics is and they may define the most appropriate definition of politics in the 21st century. Furthermore, it is likely that many people agree with their ideas. However, As Leach (2008) noted: “Defining politics turns out to be far from straight forward” (p. 7). Indeed, a definition of politics is largely based upon an individual’s culture and entirely subjective. An understanding of the history and origins of politics helps us to understand how there can be so many different definitions and understandings of politics around the globe. As we are about to discuss what politics should be, it is important to note the philosophical thoughts of
Plato believes that people are inherently good and they will do what is morally right and just for society. They will earn their right to power and ensure fairness for all to prevent the tyrants from trying to take control. Plato mentions three main arguments regarding
In Book I of the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle brings up the idea that in order to discover the human good we must first develop a certain understanding and identify the function of a human being. Aristotle’s function argument is brought up through his belief that the human function is rational activity, meaning that our good as human beings is rational activity performed fine because this is what leads to living well. The good Aristotle tries to get across can be seen in many different forms depending on how it is viewed, because of the idea that the main function of anything is to reach a final end, the final end is considered the good. “The end of medicine is health, that of shipbuilding, a ship, that of military science, victory…” (Nicomachean,
Bossuet taught that royal power is absolute, and the will of the people is united in the king. He stated that “without his absolute authority, the king could neither do good, nor prevent evil.” This showed that Bossuet believed that the absolute power of the king led to the well-being of his subjects (D-2). Similarly, much of Machiavelli’s beliefs coincided with Bossuet’s teachings. In his book, The Prince, Machiavelli offered his opinion on how an effective ruler should govern over his or her subjects. The main point made by Machiavelli was that men are inherently bad, so a leader must rule in a way that takes this into account. He taught that because of man’s ungratefulness, it is safer to be feared than loved (D-4). This shows that Machiavelli believed that the power and success of a country will lead to the prosperity of its inhabitants. Both influential people believed that a country prospers the most under absolute power.
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. Despite this, he notes that a ruler must avoid his people hating him. A hated ruler possesses no power since the people hold the power. Therefore, a ruler can be miserly, unfaithful, and ruthless, but they must appear to be the opposite. Machiavelli concludes that it is important for a ruler to balance his reputation and his actions, which I agree with, however others may argue that a ruler can posses both qualities.
The main topic of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics is eudaimonia, i.e. happiness in the “living well” or “flourishing” sense (terms I will be using interchangeably). In this paper, I will present Aristotle’s view on the role of external goods and fortune for the achievement of happiness. I will argue that he considers them a prerequisite for virtue. Their contribution to happiness is indirect, via the way they affect how we can engage in rational activity according to the relevant virtues. I will then object that this view threatens to make his overall account of happiness incoherent. Fortunately, there is a way to reconcile the apparent tensions, in book III.
Further, that because fortune owns everything except for reason we should not be dependent on then things that fortune loans us. Boethius believes that happiness is contentment that come from reason and peace of mind. Contentment is the only true happiness we can have because it involves reason and we own it. Reason is the source of getting through bad things. Contentment is self sufficiency that goes along with reason making one self governing. Purpose of politics for Machiavelli in the purest way is preservation. Furthermore, Machiavelli thinks that politics and morality do not go together. You don’t need to be a good person to be a good leader and that being a good person actually increases your chance of failing as a leader. He believes that attempting to become a better person and trying to make the people in the city better can neglect the true reason preservation. Also, believes that morality can distract you and that it doesn’t prepare you for the chaos in nature and
According to Aristotle, everything we do in life, we do for the sake of some good, or at least something we perceive to be good. We call an act good if it satisfies a certain need. The satisfaction of this need is then considered good if it is a means for satisfying some further need, and this in turn is good if it will satisfy still another need. Sooner or later this process reaches a point where it is no longer a means for some further end but is an end in itself. This final end is what Aristotle means by the chief good. The chief good is good for its own sake and all other goods are means.
In Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, the concept of happiness is introduced as the ultimate good one can achieve in life as well as the ultimate goal of human existence. As Aristotle goes on to further define happiness, one can see that his concept is much different from the 21st-century view. Aristotelian happiness can be achieved through choosing to live the contemplative life, which would naturally encompass moralistic virtue. This differs significantly from the modern view of happiness, which is heavily reliant on material goods. To a person in the 21st-century, happiness is simply an emotional byproduct one experiences as a result of acquiring material goods. Understanding Aristotelian happiness is important for the 21st century because
Aristotle advanced the philosophy of ethics, where he demonstrated that it is a means of achieving an end to happiness. However, happiness means many things to different people. To Aristotle, the most adequate way to pursue happiness is through the virtue of excellence. In his writings, Aristotle connected his therory of virtue to economics, and leadership as well. It is a matter of connecting ones personal ethics to that of ones business ethics., simply because Aristotle made no disticntion between ethics and politics. Aristotle illustrated the purpose of ethics in leadership in that he believed that virtue is ingrained in character (Ciulla, 2003).
In his novel, the prince, nicolo machiavelli guides us to be a fruitful ruler. He clarifies the best routes for any ruler or sovereign to govern a region, bring prosper to the society, and keep up their position. This book can be read by anyone to get a few pointers on political issues. Most of the thoughts held by machivelli were linked to mercilessness and evil, hence they raised a considerable number of eyebrows. He maintains that the ruler 's primary goal should be conquering, staying in control of the general public and to always have the idea of war in mind. His ideas seemed utterly straightforward as he used simple logic, thus i liked his view points, even though i had a few disagreements with his ideas of solutions to some problems. Some of his central opinions based around the idea that its better to be feared than to be loved by people. to not be unbiased and to disregard flattery.