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. He says a prince should be fully committed to war and discipline because it is the only responsibility of one who commands. War should be a prince’s only focus and if he is to ever prioritize luxury over war, his title will be …show more content…
Being hated or praised by his people is a sector that comes with the high ranking of a prince. A prince cannot possess all the qualities that are regarded as honorable. Some of a prince’s acts that appear to be wicked are beneficial to the state. Due to the impracticality of a perfect ruler, a prince should contain some aspects of evil, despite the hatred of his people. What some may believe to be the acts of a malicious ruler are, in fact, in the best interest of the state. Machiavelli states that a prince should regard himself miserly, so his people may believe that he is investing in the commonwealth. Liberality will lead to increased taxes to support a prince’s lavish spending. Therefore, a lavishly spending prince will only be hated and untrusted by his people, which will lead turmoil. In addition, a prince that strays from generosity will be regarded as a miser. While stinginess might lead to shame, generosity will lead to contempt. Therefore, a prince should avoid being benevolent and, instead, treat his subjects with a reluctance to assist. As a parsimonious leader, a prince will have plenty of money for defending his state and embarking on tasks that will not burden his people. He will be perceived as generous to those he does not take from, the majority, and perceived as miserly to he does not take from, the few. A prince should be reputable for misery in order to …show more content…
I am firmly opposed to the manipulation of one’s subjects for the better of the ruler. Machiavelli’s concept for a prince’s soldiers is a malicious brainwash. A feared ruler will only induce despise from his people. I regard Machiavelli’s justification for a prince containing aspects of evil to be a unethical form of governing a society. His depiction of a feared ruler disregards the prosperity of his people and does not account for their pursuit of happiness. They must live in fear and refrain from angering their malicious prince. A ruler should not be concerned with his own prosperity, instead, he should seek to benefit his people. I believe Machiavelli’s opinion on how a prince should rule is evil, and I find no justification in his
The Prince: A Decidedly unMedieval Piece of Work The Prince, written by Niccolo Machiavelli, was a secular handbook that dealt with modern statecraft and leadership. In fact, this was the first modern book that discussed political science. This book has influenced many well-known leaders, such as Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler. This essay will discuss the past behaviours of Machiavelli to prove that this book, The Prince, is a decidedly unMedieval piece of work which does not follow the idea of living life so that it is worthy of respect and honour, as stated in the Medieval Code of Chivalry.
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.
Throughout the chapter, Machiavelli uses authoritative language to help convince the reader and prince that his ideas are worthy of being followed. “A prince must
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.
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
In the book he looks at the historical aspects of what has happened and uses them to establish his main points. After going through what we were assigned to read, I gathered that the two most important aspects that a prince should have is knowledge and flexibility in the area of morality. Knowledge allows him to be smarter than his populace, knowing when not to be good, and the ability to combat certain cases. Being morally flexible allows him to be able to handle the ends justifying the means. It also should be noted that he believed that power is the only thing that matters and how to hold that power.
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.
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).
Through all these conflicting characteristics, a side of Hamlet is seen in a new light; a Machiavellian prince. This aspect of Hamlet is the ruthless and cunning tactician who is open to using deceit for his own ends. Machiavelli, in his book 'The Prince ', shows a set of guidelines and philosophical arguments for a ruler to embody. He states that a ruler cannot always be virtuous and good as different situations could lead him to evil and inhumane acts as shown in his statement "learn how not to be good"(Machiavelli, Ch. XV). Machiavelli also stakes his point on a ruler been versatile with his analogy of the fox and lion.
Machiavelli states that it is “splendid” for a prince to have a reputation of generosity; and that a prince who is sincerely generous “will come to grief.” This is because if “a prince want to sustain a reputation of generosity, the prince must be ostentatiously lavish” in order to get the people’s attention. The prince who spends so abundantly he “will soon squander all his resources” and find himself forced “to impose extortionate taxes” on his people. This will make his people hate him. Thus, a prudent prince will “not mind being called a miser.”
A prince must be able to control his people in order to keep the princedom united. If this does not happen, the prince’s princedom will not be stable and the prince will not be a good ruler. “For he who dwells disorder by a few signal examples will in the end be more merciful than
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.
As modeled by Niccolò Machiavelli in The Prince, a great leader should hold an even amount of love and fear over his citizens. In today’s day and age, many principles from this work have been disproven but as we take a look at contemporary art, such as television, it is seen that many ideas have found their way in. In the story told by the show Game of Thrones many characters embody traits Machiavelli describes in The Prince, some more rather than others.
According to Machiavelli, a prince who keeps his promises is generally praised. But history demonstrates that most success is achieved when princes are crafty, tricky and able to deceive others. A prince can fight or succeed by using law or by using force. The use of law comes naturally to men and the use of force comes naturally to beasts. Hence, to achieve success, the prince must learn to fight with a balance between both law and force.
Focusing on war even in times of peace is essential and id the only thing that can keep the state safe. If the prince does not focus and what is important or virtù (war) than the state will be completely dependent on fortuna. ( Machiavelli, 31) He uses the example of leaders like