Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Machiavelli on morality
Machiavelli views on morality n politics
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Machiavelli on morality
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.
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.
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.
In The Prince they talked about how a king doesn’t want to be hatred by his people but have them respect him so he can’t be to nice. So a king in this book they should be stingy, cruel, breaking promises, and having a great staff of people. Stingy would be better than being nice to your people shows them that you are the king and they need to respect you and your decision. Cruel is better than being nice also if someone takes sometime from you there has to be something done about it! Morality and ethics are not a big deal to break in The Prince breaking promises so it will benefits the king is okay to do!
Thesis:This essay will argue that Machiavelli supported secular humanism but not civic humanism. In particular, this essay will focus on how Machiavelli condoned immoral acts and believed that fear should be prioritised over love in politics. Furthermore, he thinks that it is more important to appear liberal than actually practice liberalism Throughout his book, The prince, Machiavelli stressed that it is not advised for a ruler to always be morally upright, at least not in the conventional sense (http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2014/entries/machiavelli/). He even condones certain acts by individuals which would be considered conventionally immoral, such as Romulus murdering his own brother ( Machiavelli The discourses ex.132-133).
The first half of his life was spent in the Golden Age of Florence, the heyday of the Renaissance, and the second half in a period of war between France and Spain and other powers competing in Italy. 《 The prince》was written during the period of Machiavelli's dismissal from office, and he makes it clear that his purpose in writing the book was to offer it to the Florentine authorities for reappointment. In this book, he strives to demonstrate the political wisdom he has acquired through his long political practice, limiting his subject matter to the analysis of the monarchy, which is central to his discussion of how monarchs can retain their states. Machiavelli’s political ideology was shaped by his belief in the importance of power and the need for a strong, centralized government.
Through Machiavelli’s ‘The Prince,’ he comes under scrutiny for promoting immorality as a necessary trait for a prince to have if he is to maintain his kingdom successfully. A prince must stop being good when the situation demands it as shown when he states “Since a ruler has to be able to act the beast, he should take on the traits of the fox and the lion.” The zoomorphism emphasises how the lion is used to crush prey while the fox is used to sniff out the prey and traps. To achieve this the prince must be willing to be cruel and to do what is necessary. As made evident through Shakespeare’s ‘Julius Caesar,’ where Brutus, a man said to be “the noblest Roman of them all,” committed an immoral act when he murdered Caesar for the sake of Rome, or so he believed.
Machiavelli is one of Shakespeare’s most common sources of inspiration for his writing, so it’s no surprise that Antonio’s rise to power to reflects Machiavelli’s views in regards to a ruler. Machiavelli believes that a true ‘prince’, or ruler, doesn’t need to be elected or inherited his power. According to him, there is no difference between legitimate or illegitimate seizure of power, and occupation of the throne. Shakespeare uses Antonio and the aspects of his character to delve into the controversy presented by the moral conflicts of Machiavelli’s ‘Prince’, thus revealing these methods in Prospero.
This unsympathetic, didactic tone reinforces Machiavelli’s faith in malice as a foundation for gaining power, abandoning moral righteousness. Machiavelli advocates a leader does not have to virtuous but rather, manipulative and astute, creating a defined separation between ethics and politics. The paradox “it is necessary for a prince who wishes to maintain his position to learn how not to be good” serves as an anomaly of the ethical conduct of the 1500s, reinforcing his disregard for moral norms, like Shakespeare, focusing on a more pragmatic approach to the maintenance of power. This is achieved through Machiavelli’s didactic teachings suggesting a leader “should take on the traits of the fox and the lion… you have to play the fox to see the snares and the lion to scare off the wolves”. The extended metaphor underpins the necessity for leaders to have the strength and intelligence of a lion and fox to outmatch the opponents upholding Machiavelli’s self-interested unscrupulous approach to politics and power.
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 relies on his knowledge of history to conclude that Princes who abide by a standard moral code rarely succeed. He stands by his argument that the end justifies the means for the prince. For the prince, the means is whatever is in his best interests, not necessarily the interests of his people. Sometimes, a Prince must create his new standard of morality, and sometimes change it, to meet his new means and maintain power. He believed that morality is a fluid concept, changing as the interests and the challenges of the Prince evolve.
Politics is not an art for the weak of heart or feeble of mind. For it is a horrific discipline borne out of the need to prevent different segments of society from annihilating each other; achieved through cruel means done for the objective of preventing even more potentially pernicious outcomes. Requiring a great degree of rationality and emotional detachment in order to achieve that end. When confronted with this insurmountable task, it seems rather unreasonable that western intellectuals have thoroughly stigmatized Machiavellian thought in all its incarnations. Despite the fact that the ideas outlined in The Prince and Machiavelli’s various other works merely establish a practical set of conduct which enables the achievement of those ends.
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.
Machiavelli has the most correct ideas on both controlling the people as a ruler and on being remembered as a great one. These two viewpoints had great influence during their time and for centuries to come, both with modern ideas and correct ideas even though they had a lot of contrast. Machiavelli’s The Prince may be thought of the more recognizable of the two in the present, but people in the present day have many of the same ideas that
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.