Machiavelli The Prince Political Analysis

966 Words4 Pages
Machiavelli Machiavelli was and continues to be one of the most influential figure in politics. His most famous and widely studied book was The Prince. The Prince depicted Machiavelli’s thoughts on how one obtains and sustains authority, as well as inspiring excellence in future leaders. The problem for some readers is that his methods are perceived to be unorthodox and evil; Machiavelli is a realist and sees the world not as it should be, but how it is. He also believes that the world doesn 't reward those who follow rules, and that political actions should not be limited by morality: basically, humans inherently value nationalism and security which rely on moral flexibility. However, I believe Machiavelli is not a teacher of evil. Throughout the text in The Prince, Machiavelli admits that his prescription for success would not be accurate if it were not for the natural wickedness of man. He writes, “And if all men were good, this teaching would not be good; but because they are wicked and do not…show more content…
Machiavelli makes the argument that if you can be feared and loved than perfect, but if you had to choose a greater good than it would be to be feared. His reason being is that love sustains power up to the point when mans wicked heart finds an opportunity to exploit their Prince. However, fear holds virtuous men back for fear of punishment. This method is not quite useful in a democratic nation, but in Machiavelli’s world this was effective. Oppositions to the use of fear would say that it is evil. To the contrary, evil is the use of evil for evil sake. So genocide and murder is evil, but killing can be justified. Killing can be justified in scenarios like protection, security for the state, and to keep civil obedience (in some cases). Fear is a useful tool of the time and effective if one knows how to wield
Open Document