A leader’s job should be involved so that his reputation is boosted. Leaders should choose clever advice-givers and dodge brown noses. With each of these character behaviors, Machiavelli goes against the grain. He knows that princes are always in the public eye. Their behavior will shake their public image and their status will involve their ability to keep
Ultimately, though, Machiavelli concludes that while a prince may not have all of these qualities, he must seem to have them. He must seem as virtuous as possible to the people, but, as previously stated, due to the inherently evil nature of man, he must also be prepared to work against virtue. However, if a prince has previously had a reputation of goodness, his actions will always be justified by the people and future wrongdoings will be excused. In conclusion, while a prince must strive to be multifaceted in order to succeed, he must also at the very least appear to be multifaceted and have a virtuous
People would be afraid to go against the prince as it would be seen as an act against God and they wouldn’t want to invoke God’s wrath so they will follow the prince. Domat believed that it was vital for a country to have a government or someone in charge in order to have stability in the country, that is how he justifies his need of giving certain people (e.g. Kings) authority over others. He stated that “since all people do not do their duty and some…commit injustices, for the sake of keeping order… all enterprises against this order must be repressed: which was possible only through authority given to some over others, and which made government necessary”. This shows that Domat believed that it was essential to give some people authority over others in order to run a country smoothly, otherwise, if there was no one at the top governing the people then people
If people close to Macbeth, such as his army, do not love him, then there is no possibility of unity or a joining together of a whole upon them. If Macbeth is not united with his army, then there is a very low possibility of him being united with the remainder of his people. Machiavelli's book, The Prince, holds key criteria to becoming a successful prince or ruler. These criteria are meant to be followed by any ruler who wishes to be considered triumphant in a Machiavellian sense.
On the other hand, when you are feared people will take you serious and show you more respect because they know that you are cruel and you don’t show any mercy. Also “It is impossible for the new prince to avoid the imputation of cruelty, owing to new states being full of dangers” it states in The Prince, Chapter IV. Basically he has to be cruel in order to protect himself and his title as the Prince. If Macbeth was asked the question, is it better to be feared or loved, I think Macbeth
Over history, wars have been started over the public's disagreements with rulers, and if they only took the time to discover what makes a good ruler, the catastrophes might have been avoided altogether. After all, a good ruler can be the difference between prospering life and bloody
The traditional view of a king was to rule a kingdom and sort out the injustice that the people wanted justice for. Not only did a king control the laws, politics and economics of their kingdom, the king was seen as strong enough to help lead their country into battles and come back with a victory. Henry was under pressure to make the Tudor family a successful line of Kings to help carry on a legacy, daughters were not part of his plan.
The decision is hard as the leader is standing for pacifism, he has publicly proclaimed his views against torture and violence, and that was one of the reasons why people voted for him. To agree on torture for him means to betray the beliefs people chose him for. Moreover, he personally is against the torture and frankly believes that it is wrong. But he is convinced that torture is a needed measure within the current situation, and by going against his own moral standing he is doing that for the sake of his people. As for the rebel, we do not know whether he is personally responsible for the terrorist campaign, and he definitely does not deserve to be
If the leader does not have the public’s interest on his side, it would be hard to maintain his power and stability of ruling in that certain nation. In times of crisis, this type of government would be a good resort in order to bring back a good government to the country. Since we are facing so many dilemmas now, this is a good type of government for
The statements mentioned by Machiavelli are words of advice for the prince to be as successful as possible during his time ruling. Although I myself am not a prince, I can analyze these statements using my own morals, which align with Machiavelli's point of view. When needed, the prince must take action to procure money, which could be done through raising tax prices excessively. According to Machiavelli, “This will begin to make him hateful to his subjects and, if he becomes impoverished, he will be held in low regard by everyone” (55). By this, I think he means that if the prince has not developed a good relationship with his people, he will not be accepted when he must make decisions that affect them.
Though many view Machiavelli as evil, his teachings are better seen as harsh and stable. Richard III has much to learn from Machiavelli, for his rule is unstable and overly oppressive. Machiavelli makes the distinction that one should either gain the subjects' approval or should crush them unforgivingly, two opposite extremes. Richard, however, switches between his type of ruling: somtimes he orders people to die, while other times he manipulates them, sparing their life. As Machiavelli teaches his audience in his book The Prince, if one hurts his subjects in a not fatal manner, they will strike back, seeking revenge; and this is exactly what happens to Richard.