Machiavelli And Christianity And Evil Essay

His mindset was simple. to manifest dismay and use the overwhelming power as a dictator. His intentions are clear, and his words are powerful. With a combination of rhetorical devices, a symphony of teachings are made and preached. Machiavelli is a strong advocate to use fear to herd together the common man, he begins his argument by asking a simple question, “ Here the question… safer than to be loved”. He utilizes hypophora, a method utilized by writers to hook readers on with a question which sets him up for his claim. The use of hypophora is like an alley-oop, the player that passes the ball to the dunker is the question which sets up the other player for a dunk. After instilling the question of whether it is better to be loved or feared Machiavelli lead the idea into our forethought, then he answers the question which immediately severances our time for thought on the question. By reply to the question right after, Machiavelli pitches the idea to the heirs of these imperiums, providing a higher prospect of them accepting that ideology as an answer. Machiavelli has such confidence that fear is much safer to be loved. He believes that by utilizing fear, the common men that will easily betray dare not to ever turn their backs for fear of death. For the terror of their common and worthless lives to their merciless tyrant. That sentence provides the main idea for the rest of his book, it helps prove his point by giving us the straight forward answer to the premise of the book. That sentence is a claim to Machiavelli boldly follows by and will not falter to an opposing idea. Machiavelli persistently elaborates on the idea that fear is powerful motive that is not to be reckoned with, he starts to state the fault in the common man. Machiavelli states “ For it is a good general rule… the danger is remote,”. Machiavelli here utilizes the rule of thirds, and partially inductive

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.

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

During this time, there was an ongoing religious reform but the popular religion in Europe was Christianity and according to Cardinal Christian views, the prince should seek to be loved and to be generous. It is worth noting that Machiavelli goes against this advising princes to be frugal and that if it comes down to one or the other, it is better to be feared than to be

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. A wolf has a little bit of smarts and can be fierce when they are in packs. Machiavelli considered a good prince to be a mixture of a fox and a lion. Also, he wanted a prince that would honors his own words and to be generally praised by others.

One aspect of Machiavelli’s theory which significantly contributes to his reputation as the “philosopher of evil,” is his advice to the prince on keeping their word to the public. In chapter eighteen, Machiavelli states, “a wise ruler cannot, and should not, keep his word when doing so is to his disadvantage, and when the reasons that led him to promise to do so no longer apply” (pg. 37). To simplify, Machiavelli says princes are obligated to lie in certain circumstances. He also states that while it is unnecessary for the prince to have positive qualities, such as honesty, trustworthiness, sympathy, compassion, or be religious, it is essential for the prince to be viewed so by the public (pg. 37). While many people argue that Machiavelli’s legitimization of lying and deception in politics is immoral, I argue the opposite. The use of lying and deception in politics is moral, because they are essential tools utilized by politicians to maintain the overall wellbeing of the society.

In his writing of “The Prince” he speaks of how a successful political leader or “Prince” would “seem” to be of religious background along with being merciful and honest. He accompanies this by saying how political leaders shall lie if need be. Using cruelty is also something that shall be used by political leaders however the “Prince” must maintain a merciful appearance. One can argue that he advocates a major moral issue by telling political leaders to lie while ruling a society. This is where he becomes famous for separating ethics and politics. We find traces of his philosophy in modern politics by how people running for seats of power make many promises in their campaign and once the people elect them, they may fall short in accomplishing their promises. Where Machiavelli mentioned using cruelty, one can say this applied to the rise of Hitler’s reign by how he punished the Jew’s and other minorities all the while maintaining a merciful appearance for those who supported

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. This is a work that still influences us today and is still relevant in today’s complex society. Some of the most prominent leaders of the 20th century have been influenced by Machiavellian ideas. U.S Presidents like Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton and U.K Prime Minister Anthony Blair are called Machiavellian leaders today.

When comparing Machiavelli and Rousseau’s presentation on human nature, one can see that Machiavelli’s idea of human nature was completely opposite compared to Rousseau’s idea of human nature. Machiavelli was a realist, and had a rather negative view on human nature. He assumed that men by nature are evil, and are driven by their own selfish wants and needs. In a society where they are free, everything becomes unorganized and confusing. In Machiavelli’s, The Prince, he states that, “Men never do good except out of necessity, but when they have the freedom to choose and can do as they please, everything becomes confused and disorderly (182).” Thus Machiavelli believed that the best form of society was one where the Prince ruled his kingdom

In addition, Machiavelli didn 't take the traditional route for supporting his argument of advice. He didn 't bother using any ethical or philosophical principles as the base for his advice he was trying to give. Instead, he used his own political program on real-life examples as his foundation to his treatise. Which is probably one of the reasons why "The Prince" got so much negative criticism. Machiavelli is practically stepping out of line by explaining what a prince should or should not do in pursuit of his

Machiavelli point of view to become a successful prince was that you must lead your people. He talks about how a prince should appear to his people for authority. There are different types of principles such as war and is it better to be loved or feared. He also emphasizes the importance’s that a prince must maintain his power. He said that war,

Machiavelli and Lao-tzu both ruled over a group of people at one time or another and they both had extremely different views of government and on how to rule their groups as well. Machiavelli was a man that ruled during the Renaissance in Italy while Lao-tzu ruled in China. The word government is defined as the governing body of a nation, state or community. Machiavelli was an aristocrat that lived from 1469 to 1527. He also wrote The Qualities of the Prince in 1513 and he talks about what a prince needs to do to be liked and successful. Thoughts from the Tao-te Ching is the thoughts of the Tao-te Ching that were written down by Lao-tzu before he went into self-imposed exile. Three of the many differing views are that

Just like Hobbes, Machiavelli also felt that mankind was selfish, dishonest, susceptible, and sadistic. Machiavelli did not see everyone as equal beings to take charge and have full responsibility in being a suitable leader. Knowing that man was corrupt he also felt that it would be best if society was ruled over by a sovereign government, an absolute monarchy, to ensure stability, “whoever has power has the right to command; but goodness does not ensure power and the good person has no more authority by virtue of being good… the only real concern of the political ruler is the acquisition and maintenance of power” (Nederman, 2014). All that matters is having the authority/power necessary to preserve control and keep society in order. Instead of endorsing morality, just as Rousseau wanted, Hobbes and Machiavelli sought after security. Although having security would be useful, it does not necessarily mean that it will absolutely guarantee complete control or safety over civilization; mishaps are bound to happen life can be unacceptably inevitable. As a result, living without any form of authority could actually cause havoc. If society were to break away from

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.

Niccolo Machiavelli was a statesman who flourished in Florence during the years 1469-1527.His book the PRINCE was the most popular work of the time and had wide influence . His doctrine may be thus summarized: