Machiavelli’s arguments in his work The Prince, surrounding ruling and the concept of dirty hands, were utilised in Michael Walzer’s political piece titled, Political Action: The Problem of Dirty Hands. Walzer uses Machiavelli’s commentary to advance many of his central points. Throughout his comprehensive article, Walzer effectively utilizes Machiavelli’s arguments that consistently stays true those in The Prince and provides a persuasive reading. In order to understand Walzer’s commentary, it is first important to have an understanding of Machiavelli’s The Prince. As a whole, the piece discusses how to gain control of, and maintain principalities. The Prince consists of 26 chapters that deal with different aspects of running a republic. In order to analyze Walzer’s work, chapters 15-18 of the book are necessary to understand his arguments. In chapter 15, Machiavelli begins discussing the correct behavior of a …show more content…
In his piece, Walzer puts forth some new, original arguments, but his commentary is securely anchored in the teachings of Machiavelli. Walzer’s piece is ultimately concerned with rulers, our modern politicians, and how their actions, the good and mostly bad, affect their amount of power and their level of success. In The Prince Machiavelli meticulously outlines not only how to be a successful leader, but how to gain control of a nation. While Walzer’s piece centers more around the concept of dirty hands and thus in Machiavelli’s eyes, how to rule, this does not mean his work does not stay true to The Prince. He simply chose the aspects of Machiavelli’s work that were pertinent to his argument. The concepts that Walzer chose to expand upon, learning how to be bad, making immoral decisions, and possessing unsavory characteristics, were all true Machiavellian concepts originating in The
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.
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
• Thomas used Aristotle’s view of natural law to justify the authority of the Roman Catholic Church in political as well as religious matters. For the purpose of explaining the fundamental reasons of law he used Aristotle’s philosophy and added the use of an eternal ruler. John Locke • John Locke had a distinct influence on the writers of the American Constitution by advocating for human rights and liberty through democracy. In saying so, he believed that the mass majority of ordinary people can be capable of giving consent to their governor/ruler as opposed to the Monarch government. However if the ruler did not comply with the needs of the people, Locke believed that the public had the justified right to rebel.
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.
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.
This single killing left the people with their need for revenge satisfied, and redirected an appropriate amount of fear towards Borgia earning the respectful fear of his subjects (Minter, 1992, 8). Thus, Machiavelli explores the nuances of when to use the shield as he understands that the reality of the prince must be separate from the public image of the prince to exude
The Prince, written by Machiavelli, is a candid outline of how he believes leaders gain and keep power. Machiavelli uses examples of past leaders to determine traits that are necessary to rule successfully. Leaders such as the King of Naples and the Duke of Milan lacked military power, made their subjects hate them, or did not know how to protect themselves from the elite, causing them to lose power. He says that these rulers should blame laziness, not luck, for their failures. By looking at these historical successes and failures, Machiavelli is able to develop his own thoughts on how politics and leaders should be in the future.
Machiavelli describes civil circumstances that are fit for republicanism and others that are fit for monarchical rule, possibly displaying an inherent contradiction. However, what this actually displays is the “Extraordinarily high value he attaches to political stability” (2000: p.44). This shows that Machiavelli stressed highly the necessity for a political system that guaranteed stability. Chapter LVIII of The Discourses is itself a dedication to the importance of political stability and how collective government can provide this, portraying another theme concurrent with his true political views.
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.
Among the famous philosophers and political theorists, both Niccolò Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes find recognition as the brightest representatives of their eras. It might be said that Machiavelli started a new phase in the development of political science shifting from the ancient idealistic approach to politics to the realistic approach of the modernity. In his work The Prince, the author develops an argument concerning the immorality of the politics and the political power while focusing on the image of a successful ruler. In contrast to this, Hobbes is concerned about the need for establishing of the social order and, in his Leviathan, he explains this idea through the theory of social contract between the people and the government. While
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.
However some scholars have made the point that there needs to be a new approach, which tries to gain a better understanding of Machiavelli’s ideas trough a specific textual and contextual analysis of the use of language in his works. (Colish, 1971) In this paper I will be looking to answer the question; How can true freedom be attained and how can it thereafter be guaranteed according to Machiavelli? A close reading of the work of Machiavelli shows according to Colish (1971) that Machiavelli has many definitions for freedom and that many of them are quite precise in their meaning and content.