A prince should act upon others as he might expect them to act upon him. A prince may act corrupt, cruel, and immoral, while appearing the opposite, for the means of avoiding hatred. He must be equipped with these qualities so he is able to do evil if required. This argument is justified through the strive for prosperity a prince seek for this state and the avoidance of hatred. A hated prince’s preach for peace and good faith will only result in a lack of support from his people and the loss of his state.
Like a puppet master, Iago uses deception in the play Othello, by William Shakespeare, as a duplicitous being with perfidious views on the demise of others for personal revenge against Othello. Consequently, he is able to manipulate the characters in an adroit manner with ease as if fraudulency becomes second nature. Yet, Iago has not become this iconic villain without just (used loosely) cause. Before Iago’s notorious connotation, this dauntless soldier-people considering the precedent for just acts, and pious intentions- is discounted for a promotion by word of Othello, leading the inexorable “green-eyed monster” to peek its grotesque head out from underneath its lair. Agitated and undoubtedly cunning, Iago seeks his revenge against Othello with a ferocity unmatched, using every arsenal disposable to him; deception being his greatest.
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. Machiavelli’s first suggests that a powerful ruler cannot be a good person. A good person, someone who is “merciful, faithful, kind, religious, upright”, cannot be a good ruler(Machiavelli, 55). He claims that “anyone who wants to act the part of a good man … will bring about his own ruin”(48). Acting as a good man will not bring a
Machiavelli, on one hand presented some arguments that to me were excessive like deceiving the people, not caring about what they think, and having the right to kill the family members of the former family in charge. Hobbes on the other hand, said we are not certain of anything and develops his deductive reasoning questioning everything and later saying it’s acceptable for us to live with uncertainty. Machiavelli and Hobbes both lived in fear and their theories reflect that, for which I think are bases more in emotions than logic. However, I think the fact that Locke’s time were relatively peaceful allowed him to write from a more “human” perspective. Natural rights is the argument I support the most.
Throughout the play, deception is a vital element in the betrayal of both King Lear and Gloucester. For example, Shakespeare depicts Edgar’s scheme personality by saying, “A credulous father, and a brother noble— / Whose nature is so far from doing harms” (1.2. 192-193). By utilizing descriptions such as “credulous” and “noble” to describe Gloucester and Edgar, it reveals the malicious aspect of deception. Shakespeare shows the evil behind this deception by revealing Edgar wants to take advantage of the innocent for his own personal gain.
If vengeance was Prospero’s motive, there might have been more of an incentive to sink the ship along with its passengers at the beginning. Shakespeare makes it easy for you to put yourself in Prospero’s shoes and expect that he would want what is natural to man, revenge. The audience finds themselves wanting Prospero to enact justice on his enemies. The audience tends to get caught up in this, only to find themselves disappointed when they do not get the revenge plot they were expecting. Shakespeare creates an illusion that urges the reader to think a certain way.
Deception, for example, is a major tool Shakespeare’s characters exploit in their encounters to hide their true identities. Iago’s beginning success in his attempt to hoax the dramatis personaes was due to his ability to be fickle. As the antagonist, “honest” Iago uses his deceptive nature to depict an impression far from his reality. Throughout the classical tragedy Othello, The Moor of Venice, the ensign, Iago, manages to betray many characters, while still maintaining his appearance of honesty and dedication to attain a desired reality. The malice and evil-spiritedness of Iago is established in the opening act of the play.
During this term we read “Inferno,” the first part of the sizeable poem. This first part narrows the adventure of Dante and his guide Virgil through hell. Along this odyssey, Dante shows to us the punishment for Catholic capital sins. By the context and events that passed in Dante’s life we can deduce that The Divine Comedy is a demonstration of the hypocrisy of society. For this, Dante uses allusions and analogies to make his rivals feel fear.
So Iago tells Roderigo that he would help him to win the heart of Desdemona. Iago tricks Roderigo, which is apart of his plan to get Roderigo on board to help him. And Roderigo foolishness is what allows Iago to get embarrassed of him. After hearing Roderigo's plead for help he say's that " I hate the Moor and it is thought abroad that ' twixt my sheets has done my office./ I know if't be true,/ But I, for mere suspicion in that kind will do as if surety he holds me well". (1.3.424.55) Meaning that Iago knows that he's able to use Roderigo unwillingly and get him to do his dirty work for him.
In Machiavelli’s book, The Prince, he maintains a harsh perspective on reality. His advice for power leaves no room for compassion. Despite this, he notes that a ruler cannot be hated, for he will lose power so it is important for a ruler to balance his reputation. While it may seem like a fine line to walk, Machiavelli tends to emphasize that it is better to maintain power through fear, rather than compassion. Machiavelli’s critical view leads him to suggest that a ruler should balance being cruel with being hated in order to maintain power.