In conclusion, people love at their own wish, but fear at the prince‘s will, so a wise ruler will rely on what he can best control. Machiavelli considers mercy and cruelty. As with generosity and miserliness, he comes down on the side of the supposedly bad quality. He bases his judgment on consideration of what benefits the most people. It is no use to be merciful if by doing so, a prince allows disorder in his state to get out of control. A controlled amount of cruelty, which harms a few, can avert widespread violence and lawlessness, which harms many. Mercy that allows the majority to suffer cannot properly be called mercy. This is an extremely old idea in Western jurisprudence, and one can still hear it cited as a justification for the imposition of punishment for crimes: Failing to punish wrongdoers penalizes the innocent people who would be harmed by the criminal‘s future actions. …show more content…
Instead, he must be cruel only when necessary to avoid greater wrongs. Even his assertion that the leaders of armies must be cruel is based on the maintenance of discipline, for undisciplined armies harm innocent citizens—or even the ruler himself. The most cynical of Machiavelli‘s statement is his assertion that people are quicker to forgive the death of a loved one than the confiscation of their property—there could be no bleeker assessment of raw human selfishness. Surrounded by people like these, a prince is indeed safer if he can control them by fear, because love is so fleeting and
According to Machiavelli, “when the prince is with his armies and has a multitude of soldiers under his government, then it is above all necessary not to care about a name for cruelty because without this name he never holds his army united or disposed to any action" (Machiavelli 67). Machiavelli promotes rulers practicing cruelty because it inspires fear in a ruler. Essentially, This fear makes his subjects easier to control because they fear the retribution the ruler may bring down upon them for disobeying one of his laws or
With this control, they could stage a revolt and displace the prince. The prince, with no control, has no option other than to respond with detrimental actions in an attempt to subdue the hatred and his impending removal. Machiavelli argues that this sequence of events can be avoided entirely by preventing hatred from starting in the first place. If the prince does this, then he controls how the civilians perceive him and he can act in ways to limit their desire to overthrow him.
In Niccolo Machiavelli's book, The Prince (1513), he evaluates on how a prince can be a successful leader. Machiavelli’s purpose of this guidebook was to construct his argument to the rising ruler Giuliano de Medici for when he comes to power in Florence. He adopts a casual but authoritative tone in order to convince the prince that Machiavelli’s evaluation on how to be the best prince, is the right thing for the prince to do without coming off as he knows more than the prince or is trying to intimidate him.. Machiavelli’s reference to previous rulers and whether their tactics failed or succeeded helps to benefit his credibility along with his allusion to historic text. He appeals to our logic by simply stating a prince can only do what is within his power to control, and his use of an analogy furthers his argument.
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
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 the book, Machiavelli believes in the idea of having a strong dominant leader, in order to preserve the benefits to the citizens as a group instead of individually. This strategy clearly shows in chapter seventeen where Machiavelli points out that every prince would prefer to be loved than to be feared. However, the two rarely co-existed. If one had to choose, it is not only better to be feared than to be loved but it is also much “safer” looking at it realistically. By safer, it means that you will not have to worry and watch out as much since people will be less likely to conspire against someone they fear than someone they love.
In Machiavelli’s “The Morals of the Prince” the idea of a ruler’s/ tyrant’s obligation to his people is also presented. In one section, Machiavelli talks a ruler’s best way to navigate himself through leadership. Machiavelli weighs between the importance of being generous and self-preservative. A ruler risks his entire welfare for the sake of being seen as benevolent. He states, “A prince of character is bound to use up his entire revenue in works of ostentation...
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.
“What is Just Mercy?” Does a thing such as “Just Mercy” exist in this world? Has the concept as such changed throughout history? “Mercy” is defined as the compassion and forgiveness toward someone who could easily be harmed by one. “Just” refers to something that is morally right and fair. From this definition stems the ideas conveyed throughout Bryan Stevenson’s memoir of morality and compassion in the Justice system.
The best place to begin for this where he answered the question which is better to be loved or feared Love or Fear Which is to be better loved or feared? This question is an important one and Machiavelli answer for it is great. “One ought to be both feared and loved, but as it is difficult for the two to go together, it is much safer to be feared than loved” (Machiavelli 61). This leads to one of his core beliefs which is that, he believes humans are awful creatures and will seek out
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.
Machiavelli believed that men will follow a ruler as long as the ruler serves their interests, and a quick to turn against the ruler unless they fear great punishment. Machiavelli would say that it is best to be feared rather than loved as long as the fear does not cause hate, which he believed to be perfectly possible.
When Machiavelli says he wants a prince to be fierce he isn 't talking about killing people, he is more so talking about having the courage to make a risky law change or do something people may not like, but will help them in the long run. He was not smart in any way like a fox is. Throwing people into
According to him, rulers should know their respective limits when it comes to the force and violence they inflict. Machiavelli believes that maximizing betrayal, deception and other cruel acts aren’t considered talents. Although these methods are effective in gaining empire, these don’t help in getting glory. Therefore, using violence and cruelty may be necessary but should have limits. The prince must know up to what extent his violence should be inflicted upon and he must do it all at once to avoid the hatred and resentment from his