Machiavelli's Ruler Qualities

Nowadays, democracy is unfortunately seen as inevitable; in other words, it is the political system no one dares to question and even less making it publicly. According to several experts, this is an unfortunate fact for two main reasons. First, this practice limits our imagination. When considering other alternatives is almost forbidden, we do not think about them, and what is worst, we will not see or find them even if they are right in front of our eyes. Second, because even if democracy can be considered as the best political system, to become it in a dead dogma and not see it just an option will weaken it.

However, no matter how many other flaws can be found in his arguments, what matters are people’s lives. We can pretend the issue is not related to us or discuss the problem day and night and take very little steps to solve it, but we cannot ignore the fact that we are, as a society, the only ones who can help suffering people. It may not be reasonable to blame us for their problems anyway or demand a great amount of our income from us, though voluntary charity is a good alternative decision. The only key thing here is that we can only solve the global issue together. Does not a chance that something you do not value that much can save somebody’s live make it worth to try?

Various reasons prove this, though the people believe that they are better best served before the state, history only shows the most benevolent and the most hated rulers. So if a ruler rules just to be well-liked history does not show that they had any significance because none of the people are left to remember what acts of kindness they performed. If a leader is feared but provides huge expansion and sets up their state to be successful in the future they are remembered as important to causing their state to be the way it is today. In truth, all people serve to their own interests and will turn on anyone who goes against it unless they are controlled. It is nearly impossible to control people with their love for ruler because they will not love the ruler once the ruler goes against their interests, but if they fear the ruler they will fear going against them and stay under the influence of their ruler.

“I do not wish to quarrel with any man or nation, I do not wish to split hairs, to make fine distinctions, or set myself up as better than my neighbors” (“Civil Disobedience”). Henry David Thoreau was a man who was marvelous at contradicting himself. He says he does not want to make himself seem superior to others, but all the man does is patronize others who do not think or act as he does. The man preaches individuality, but one cannot truly be an individual; all the ideals that someone come up with and follow, it is almost promised someone else has already thought of it. The simple act of trying to have someone follow the way another think and live, which is what Thoreau spent most of his life doing, is in fact stripping them from their own

They do not get the right to vote, why should they be able to break the law whenever they please to have it function when it benefits them? The moment they break the law, it should no longer be able to be used to their advantage. However, it has been stated that some of those prisoners are innocent and do not deserve to be cut off from the world 's biggest decision involving citizens. As a result of this it has been impossible to take a decision on this matter, can we really put the future of multiple countries into jeopardy for a small amount of the population, which claims to be innocent which may or may not be true? Even if innocents should get the right to vote, this decision is too important to risk a disaster to make a minuscule amount of the population prosper.

Rule-utilitarianism avoids this issue as they are are committed to rules which generate positive expectation effects which tells us how people are likely to behave. While rule-utilitarians do not deny that there are people who are not trustworty, it is clear that their moral code condemns violations of trust as wrongful rather than the act-utilitarian approach which supports the moral view that has the effect of undermining trust. We should, 'therefore accept rules against…breaking promises and violating people's rights because following them as a regular practice promotes general welfare' (Rachels,

This would allow people to break the law, not follow simple instructions, and break any rules set upon them. Further, this would stop them from doing their job or behaving correctly if there were no rewards or punishments. However, complete obedience may not be beneficial for society either. If every person in society did everything they were told to do by a superior, the results would most likely turn out not as expected. One might believe that this would be very good for society.

Maybe our comparison should be best kept in the gutter as we don’t need to be as cruel as jonas’ society

Thus, since it is impractical to use a rigid moral system, both Weber and Sophocles discuss the importance of responsibility and consequences in decision making. This conception of responsibility and consequences is significant because it differs from a utilitarian quest for “the greater good”. When considering one’s responsibilities, it is inadvisable to cause pain to the individuals that a political leader is responsible for, regardless of the total pleasure it may lead to. In the case of Antigone, Creon’s decision leads to a tragic outcome because he does not take into account the consequences of his actions. His resolve to obstinately stick to his decision is his ultimate downfall.

First argument that Paine has made was about distinction between society and government. Paine made it clear that he mainly did not love government, whose individual value he thought lies in "restraining our vices" (Paine, 1776). For Paine, the natural state of man is to live without government, and government's existence is needed only to solve its problems created by this usual, revolutionary way of life. If a government is unsuccessful in improving society or, even worse, it is actively initiates other troubles so it is not essential to be ruled by that government.

Mustapha Mond comes to understand that the world state cannot allow the public to learn the truth because they have created a system where if the people found out they could have a choice of job it would destabilize the society. In addition to making Mustapha Mond unhappy, it demonstrates a key problem in Brave New World because the general happiness of the people comes at the loss of the freedom to choose what they do with their life. Helmholtz has realized that the world state does not allow him the freedom he could have in his job if the people knew the truth. In Brave New World to hide the truth and keep the people happy they can not have the freedom to choose their job. This demonstrates a problem created as a result of the conflict between truth and happiness in Brave New World because if everyone was happy and knew the truth the world state might be able to let them choose their job without the fear of it destabilizing the

He was definitely an enemy of the government but he wasn 't an enemy of the nation. I believe that he didn 't just want the power of being king. He wasn 't very good at being king and he probably could have still lived in luxury without that title. For that reason, I believe he was trying to restore his power because he thought it

Should our country sacrifice the solutions our country needs just to keep within the confines of political correctness? That would be destructive for the well- being of our nation at this time. Ben Carson is a proponent of saying things as they are and he could care less about being politically correct. I believe that most American’s support Ben Carson’s idea of not being politically correct if we want to fix the problems in our country. Political correctness is a serious matter that censors what we say and how we say it.

The march was a disobedience act on the British government to gain Independence. He thought it was the fault of British officials than the system. Gandhi thought officials were what kept him and the people from gaining Independence. Although, he fought for Independence he was non-violent As Gandhi looked for a better future he didn’t want to hurt people so he was non-violent. He used his non violent ways to fight against British rule and also racial discrimination.

Consensus; noun, “to build a plan of action acceptable by all.” (Source 1). Consensus sounds remarkable on paper, but putting the plan into action is a complete different story much like lower taxes, free college, and raising minimum wage. Consensus may be acceptable in some situations but consensus all the time is just irrational. To begin with, consensus would not work for everything.