The Prince: A Decidedly unMedieval Piece of Work The Prince, written by Niccolo Machiavelli, was a secular handbook that dealt with modern statecraft and leadership. In fact, this was the first modern book that discussed political science. This book has influenced many well-known leaders, such as Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler. This essay will discuss the past behaviours of Machiavelli to prove that this book, The Prince, is a decidedly unMedieval piece of work which does not follow the idea of living life so that it is worthy of respect and honour, as stated in the Medieval Code of Chivalry.
Accordingly, we see that politicians avoid uses of virtue or in other words principles for his own interest which include his own security. Finally, Machiavelli describes a point of view that those in power take on the nature of humans. To rather be safe and protect their interest Machiavelli shows that politicians corrupt principles we base public policy on by stating “ For it is a good general rule about men, that they are ungrateful, fickle, liars and deceivers, fearful of danger and greedy for gain”(866). In sum, Machiavelli depicts politicians taking different points of view on principles therefore public policy in
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
Body Cameras Don 't Work If They Are Not Worn or Not Turned On After Michael Brown, the unarmed black teen who was shot in Ferguson, Missouri, America made it known that we want police officers to wear body cameras. Police Departments responded by saying they want officers to wear body cameras, too. So, if everybody wants the officers to wear body cameras why are there still so many incidents of questionable conduct that are not recorded? According to the Huffington Post, only 2 of the 27 large U.S. cities looked at had all of their officers equipped with body cams.
The Ancient-modern debate involves two main tenets and philosophers Boethius and Niccolo Machiavelli and both have extremely different and even contradictory views of politics and whether morality comes into play and how. Boethius covers the classical side of the debate where he gets some of his ideas from other philosophers in the classical rea like Plato and Socrates. Niccolo Machiavelli covers the modern aspect of the debate. Both speak on similar themes like the conception of happiness, the role of “Lady Fortuna” or Fortune and politics. The ancient or classical view of in the Ancient modern debate of human nature is that humans are naturally good and naturally political.
Philosophical ideas impacted human history, particularly in government. Niccolo Machiavelli and John Locke ideation molded human history on how power should be divided equally amongst the people and the ruler. Their theories began the steps to construction of the U.S government. Machiavelli ideas migrated the power in monarchies away form the power of the church to the King/Queen. Particularly starting in Florence during the renaissance and political enlightenment.
In the early sixteenth century there were two people that wrote about political power and the correct way to rule, both of these people would have great influence on their time period as well as future ones. Machiavelli was a secretary who worked for the Medicis, after the Medici family was expelled from the city he would reflect on what he thought of politics and how he thought they should be by writing The Prince, it would become a very famous book even in the present day. His viewpoint on ruling was that a ruler must do whatever they can in order to improve the state no matter what, or in his words “The ends justify the means”(The Prince). Erasmus was a Dutch intellectual and leader of the Christian humanists who wrote a treatise on political
Plato and Machiavelli were nevertheless, as similar as they were different on their beliefs in an idealistic government. Both of their ideas have been taught for years, and are certainly essential to understand how they interpret a perfect polis. Plato emphasis the question on what is justice for the people as well as for the Kallipolis and whether a just person is better off than an unjust person. Ethical beliefs are Plato’s main focus in a government.
The best possible conduct of rulers toward subjects and partners stays to be talked about. Numerous others have treated this subject, yet Machiavelli constructs his perceptions in light of this present reality, not on an envisioned perfect. There is such a great amount of contrast between the way individuals ought to act and the way they do act that any sovereign who tries to do what he ought to will destroy himself. A sovereign must know when to act unethically. Everybody concurs that a ruler ought to have all great qualities, but since that is unimaginable, an astute sovereign will keep away from those indecencies that would decimate his energy and not stress over the rest.
In the field of political theory, history, and literature, there have been many ideas passed. When we consider the Middle Ages, The Prince by Nicolo Machiavelli and Utopia by Sir. Thomas More appears to be the most influential works on how leaders should govern. By analyzing the messages passed by both Machiavelli and More, we will determine their requirements for establishing a successful system of government, and assisting those in authority to become better leaders. Nicolo Machiavelli is seen as a major political thinker, who had unique ideas concerning governance and leadership.
In The Birth of Tragedy, Friedrich Nietzsche’s descriptions of the Apollonian and Dionysian align with the writings of Immanuel Kant and Karl Marx, respectively. In Kant’s writing, he argues that man can eventually progress towards a utopian state from man’s reason. However, Kant’s picture of human nature is one of a lawful progression towards the utopian state. When outlining the characteristics of the Apollonian state, Nietzsche explains that there is a “delicate line, which the dream-picture must not overstep…that measured limitation, that freedom from the wilder emotions, that philosophical calmness of the sculptor-god” (Nietzsche, 2).
As we have established, if the primary role of the state is to secure and maintain the most possible happiness for the people, the surely an unjust state would not be a state capable of achieving this goal. Monarchies seem the ideal constitution to Aristotle because the virtue of the monarch is not diluted by the potentially selfish desires of others. However, this is also the least stable of the
As the least harsh description we have Quentin Skinner’s ideas. He explained Machiavelli’s thoughts about the human nature and his advices of cruelty to the princes by saying acts can be seen reasonable through seeing them as a “last best” option. By his words ‘ Machiavelli prefers conformity to moral virtue ceteris
We can approach Book 4 of Aristotle’s Politics with the following question: What is the best regime considering the nature of human beings and the circumstances the state is faced with? In Book 3, Aristotle sets out the 6 kinds of regimes: monarchy, aristocracy, polity (the correct regimes) and tyranny, oligarchy, and democracy (flawed regimes) (Aristotle, 3.7). In Book 4, Aristotle continues postulating what the best regime is, he also considers existing regimes and their inadequacies. In this paper, I will explore objections to Aristotle’s polity, and highlight the shortcomings of his justification of politea which includes the use of Aristotle’s Golden Mean , which essentially leads to a fallacious argument to moderation. However,
Machiavelli begins by crafting an analogy, which serves to expound on his sentiment that a ruler must know how to govern both beast and man, and in governing beast a ruler must know when “to choose the fox and the lion” (Machiavelli ch.18). Machiavelli details how it is necessary for a ruler to have traits of both the lion and the fox, as the fox “knows how to recognize traps, and the lion [knows how] to aw the wolves” (Machiavelli ch.18). The analogy compounds on the necessity of a well-rounded ruler and serves to exemplify the core philosophy that Machiavelli is suggesting – that it is necessary for a ruler to know how best to deal with a situation at
