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.
In his work, Machiavelli asked the now famous question of "whether it be better to be loved than feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, it is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with" (Machiavelli 409). He proposed in his writing that if all men were good, there would be no need for these tactics, but since this is not the case, violence and fear is a necessary evil. This comes back to the main synopsis of Machiavelli 's work that is the ends justify the means. A ruler may want to be favorable among his subjects and be considered a good ruler, but at maintaining power and peace in the kingdom is top priority.
He argues that a good and strong princedom is one that can sufficiently battle out with any military power in the battle fields without relaying to allies. A good prince is one with a good war plan and who understands the war terrains. More so, he should not be over generous to his subjects as this may cause greed which may lead to exhaustion of resources. A prince should exhibit a love-fear kind of attributes, as it is better to be feared than loved but should exhibit caution with interfering with his subject 's properties. A prince should keep his words and avoid contradicting aspects in his reign so as to have respect among his subjects.
Polemarchus responds by saying, “that the men one believe to be good, one loves, while those he considers bad one hates.” This is the problem with Polemarchus’ view of justice. He could easily be wrong about who is “good” and who is “bad” and you will end up treating someone who has done nothing wrong unjustly. Dividing a country into classes where each person must be loyal to ones own class would never lead to true justice because the different classes would only be loyal to their particular class. The ruling class would benefit more from this because they are in fact the higher
In The Prince it states “Should be feared rather than loved "if you cannot be both" in order to avoid a revolt;” (The Prince) explains that not all leaders are admired and followed by the citizens. What determines the differences of a good leader to a bad leader is just a minor change. It is just if a leader could look broadly into the world. Same with illegal immigration problem, the leader of the country should take care of the people who is benefitting from the country without any contributions, and the husband of one’s daughter. A good leader doesn’t give any excuses to which ever points made on the nation, a real leader should have a resolute opinion about how will the nation is going to be ruled.
Martin Luther King a famous social activist once stated, “we must develop and maintain the capacity to forgive. He who is devoid of the power to forgive is devoid of the power to love.” When referring to these words it is shown how forgiving we can be for people that we hate or dislike. In William Golding's book The Lord of the Flies his character Jack shows the actions of power, fear, and acceptance. People in power are more afraid of losing that power because it may show you as a failure, and to take control is much easier than taking responsibility for actions because there may be consequences, but most of all forgiveness is the hardest to do because it is just too hard to let go. Jack was a different type of leader than Martin Luther
Watchful: Important to keep an eye on who is trying to overthrow you or take advantage of you. 7. I think a state might be a disastrous if it was ruled under a Machiavellian Ruler. A Machiavellian Ruler is selfish and what I think is narcissistic, so that is why I think it would bad to have rulers like that. Maybe some of the advice Machiavelli gives is true but in the end it 's all had.
Mond is like a philosopher king because he sacrifices his own interests for the sake of others. “By choosing to serve happiness”, he sacrifices his interests for truth and science. For a place like the New World where consumerism is prominent, old things do not belong like the books he reads. Consumerism means liking the new ones. “[They] don’t want people to be attracted by old things” that is why old books like Othello are prohibited.
In part one, The underground man rejects utopian societal views and believes in restricts mankind from acting on its desires, ultimately concluding that his free will and hyperconscious give him power because he means that he is superior due to his vast amount of intelligence. On the other hand, in part two, he applies what he learns from romance novels onto real life situations, which does not work because of the differences from fantasy and reality. He struggles to validate himself to society by displaying power over others. The Underground man needs self validation, and the only way he can achieve this is through dominance over others, which he attempts to receive through his intelligence with Liza. Power struggles signify a desire for confirmation of self
Yes, it is nice to be nice, even Machiavelli believes in this point, yet in the world of The Prince, it suffices just to be seen as nice. He defines traditional virtues as the general qualities usually praised by others as good, and these include attributes such as generosity, piety, and compassion. Machiavelli believes that a leader must always appear to be virtuous, but that acting virtuously for just virtue’s sake can even be more detrimental to his state than being stark cold. A prince should not just avoid vices like deceit, cruelty or greed too blatantly, especially if using them will help him benefit his state. He is also quick to point out that these vices should also not only be followed just for the vice in them, and virtue just for the sake of virtue, but must be conceived as means to the desired