In The Prince by one of the many famous Florentians, Niccolò Machiavelli, the authors work opens up a metaphorical can of worms that has many arguing that the means by which a final result is come upon is justified, whilst other would argue that the end result does in no way justify the means by which the result is brouhgt about. I will however argue here that the former is what I consider personally correct as can be clearly witnessed nearly all throughout Mr. Machiavelli's work. One must put himself, no matter how hard it may be to imagine, in the boots of a prince, the actions of a prince are not just for the princes own personal pleasure, the princes actions affects nearly all his subjects. Mr. Machiavelli writes in Chapter six; "A wise man ought always to follow the paths beaten by great men, and to imitate those who have been supreme, so that if his ability does not equal theirs, at least it will savour of it." At a first glance this quote may seem insignificant and …show more content…
Although some may say that cruelty was under no circumstances acceptable we must look at the bigger scope of things in which a single life is usually worth, to be frank, less than the dirt beneath his/her life. Some would say that putting war criminals on death row would be cruel, but if those criminals are not made examples than crimes of similar nature will be thought of as "acceptable" crimes. The end in the aforementioned example is that criminals think twice before comitting crimes and they way that this brought about, the means, being that those previously convicted of the crime are put to
President Obama echo a leadership of both Niccolo Machiavelli "The Qualities of the Prince" and Martin Luther King Jr. "Letter from Birmingham Jail". Machiavelli point of view to become a successful prince was that you must lead your people. He talks about how a prince should appear to his people for authority. There are different types of principles such as war and is it better to be loved or feared.
The court believed that the scheme of chastisement under the ruling was consequently “cruel and unusual” if it was too unembellished for the crime, if it was arbitrary, if it affronted societies sagacity of justice, or if it was not more operative than a less unembellished penalty. Reinstating the Death Penalty
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT Capital punishment is typically considered as a human way to approach to kill the most wickedness criminals and to discourage others from carrying out intolerable crimes. However, the unrestrained expenses of capital punishment cases have states thinking about whether it's justified regardless of the price tag. The lethal established ailment in the discipline of death is that it treats 'individuals from mankind as nonhumans, as articles to be toyed with and disposed of. It is along these lines conflicting with the essential reason of the Clause that even the most awful criminal remains a person had of normal human respect.
So, in Machiavelli’s point of view, as a politician, the purpose and intentions of one’s generosity is solely to get to their desired position, in this case the prince. The politicians will say numerous things they will do when they become a prince; however, once they actually become one, they no longer feel obliged to keep their promises, and most of the promises they made were merely to get the votes. This results in only a small fraction of the promises being kept, and these kinds of politicians are not so hard to find even in today’s
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.
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
His tongue was still red, his eyes not yet extinguished”( wiesel 65). The pipel did not deserve to die the way he did. Sure he did something bad, but he was just a child and shouldn’t have been executed. Lastly, inhumanity can cause many things but one of them is
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.
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.
Both of these highly influential authors had different opinions on ruling that would shape how people would rule during their time and for rulers to come. One of Machiavelli’s major points in The Prince was that it was better to be feared than to be loved. He said this was because while both ways can be useful tools to help one rule, men are less likely to turn a ruler if they were afraid of punishment. Machiavelli had little faith in the common man and had this to say about them, “They are ungrateful, fickle, deceptive and deceiving, avoiders of dangers, eager to gain”(pg.353).
Machiavelli wrote that you have to lie and cheat everyone beneath you to maintain your status, as being the ruler of your country is the most important thing. Leo Paul S. de Alvarez, a professor at the University of Dallas, explains Machiavelli’s position perfectly, “The prince cannot be virtuous because of the people. So that the people may keep their own he must give up his desire to be virtuous. Prudence, but not an Aristotelian prudence, replaces virtue. Machiavellian prudence is what permits the prince to be good and not good, as necessity requires.”
Probably one of the most infamous and controversial ideologies of the 16th century, the prince by Machiavelli has been a reference for many great leaders and academicians since it was published. The book provides historically tested and proven principles of leadership. The prince has been described as a manual for those who want to win and retain power. While some may argue that leadership is an inherent trait in human, leaders are made, not born. Making a great leader out of a person is not just a matter of identifying the leadership traits, skill and talents of the individual, but harnessing the traits, develop them and eventually mastering how to be leader.
Being a prince is not as easy as it may seem. There are good and bad decisions a prince can make. Machiavelli has his own standards on how a prince should behave. According to Machiavelli, a prince could be considered a lion, a fox, or a wolf. The lion is fierce but doesn’t have the smarts, while a fox has the smarts but isn 't fierce.
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
I. Machiavelli In his famous work the Prince Niccolo Machiavelli exposes what it takes to be a good prince and how only this good price and keep control over his state. There are many different qualities that make a man a good ruler but there are some that are more essential than others. In this work Machiavelli stresses the importance of being a warrior prince, a wise prince, and knowing how to navigate the duality of virtù and vices. Without these attributes there was no way that a prince could hold together their state and their people.