In “The Prince,” Machiavelli discusses the terms and procedures he believes a prince should take to govern his society. Many perceive his views on human nature and leadership as evil and cruel towards his people. He justifies his views on human nature as he draws examples from the tactics and traits of successful leaders from the past. His ideas are comprised from justifying the means of his actions by its ends. Machiavelli selects the aspects of admirable historical figures to produce and describe his ideal prince.
In The Prince it states “Should be feared rather than loved "if you cannot be both" in order to avoid a revolt;” (The Prince) explains that not all leaders are admired and followed by the citizens. What determines the differences of a good leader to a bad leader is just a minor change. It is just if a leader could look broadly into the world. Same with illegal immigration problem, the leader of the country should take care of the people who is benefitting from the country without any contributions, and the husband of one’s daughter. A good leader doesn’t give any excuses to which ever points made on the nation, a real leader should have a resolute opinion about how will the nation is going to be ruled.
Thomas Jefferson and Niccolo Machiavelli both believe that the actions of the people shape the characteristics of the ruler and define the type of authority that will be held towards the people. Machiavelli, the first great political philosopher of the Renaissance, argues all men are untrustworthy due to their selfish, self-interested and impulsive ways of life in his writing, The Morals of the Prince, and therefore, to keep the people under control the ruler must be prepared to be cruel and instill fear among the people. Opposing Machiavelli is Jefferson. In The Declaration of Independence Jefferson believes people can be trusted since they have the ability to make their own decisions. Whereas Machiavelli supports tyranny, Jefferson believes
Yes, it is nice to be nice, even Machiavelli believes in this point, yet in the world of The Prince, it suffices just to be seen as nice. He defines traditional virtues as the general qualities usually praised by others as good, and these include attributes such as generosity, piety, and compassion. Machiavelli believes that a leader must always appear to be virtuous, but that acting virtuously for just virtue’s sake can even be more detrimental to his state than being stark cold. A prince should not just avoid vices like deceit, cruelty or greed too blatantly, especially if using them will help him benefit his state. He is also quick to point out that these vices should also not only be followed just for the vice in them, and virtue just for the sake of virtue, but must be conceived as means to the desired
He says that it is dangerous to be a free spending prince even though it seems like a virtù. Instead a vice like miserliness will enable a prince to properly govern (Machiavelli,
Britain’s flaws are pointed out as revolving around the priority of the state over the individual. In this, Cooper acknowledges that “the man himself does not matter” , but clearly, he sees this as a nonissue in the grand scheme. The only sign of persuasion Cooper
This fight or flight attitude is reactionary and exemplifies the stubbornness of the English crown to entertain our demands. All we ask is for no taxation without representation, and although Johnson argues that taxation not in itself tyranny, this is contradicted by the definition of tyranny as cruel and oppressive government that does not represent the will of the people it governs. Although Johnson holds firmly to his, perhaps delusional, belief that American resistance is futile under British naval power, he might be surprised to learn how well we can navigate our native and rough terrain unlike that of the motherland and he perhaps underestimates the spirit of the colonies and our commitment to win our just liberties, whether that victory be won, preferably through logic, but nonetheless through insurrection if
Dimmesdale grew up in a strict society with the idea that restraint was most important. To Loring, weakness was viewed as a moment of true human passion. This was to be avoided at all costs by Dimmesdale who believed it to be a horrible crime This act of passion imbued on him an undying guilt. Although he had only acted on his true nature, he had gone against society. Loring speaks of a two-fold nature that a member of society is demanded to have : the nature born
Question No. 10 Answer: The furthest point of Hobbes' state of nature is embodied as the war of each man against each man. This one line aggregates up the seriousness of the situation introduced by Hobbes and illuminates why the life of man must be terrible, brutish and short. This position of Hobbes is landed at systematically that maybe makes him the father of political science. Regarding human organization Hobbes saw movement as creating enjoyment or displeasure inside of us.
If civil society does not exist, then moral virtue cannot exist. If moral virtue cannot exist, then everything is permissible. Therefore, if civil society does not exist then everything is permissible. Seabury’s argument fundamentally misunderstands natural rights, because it assumes that civil society–associations formed through human interaction, otherwise defined as politics–determines the moral obligations of men. Politics, by its very nature, cannot infer natural and moral rights upon men.