The main point made by Machiavelli was that men are inherently bad, so a leader must rule in a way that takes this into account. He taught that because of man’s ungratefulness, it is safer to be feared than loved (D-4). This shows that Machiavelli believed that the power and success of a country will lead to the prosperity of its inhabitants. Both influential people believed that a country prospers the most under absolute power.
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
Niccolo Machiavelli was an Italian Renaissance writer and diplomat. He wrote “The Prince”, and he expresses several characteristics which he believes are important to be a successful leader. Such as, being feared rather than loved, not revealing the entire and/or real reason they’re doing something unless it’s somehow advantageous to them, being duplicitous, and being narcissistic. I disagree with these opinions. First of all, Machiavelli claims it is better to be feared rather than loved.
REAL-POLITIK: THE END JUSTIFIES THE MEANS “Let a prince therefore aim at conquering and maintaining the state, and the means will always be judged honourable and praised by everyone.” “For where the very safety of the country depends upon the resolution to be taken, no consideration of justice or injustice, humanity or cruelty, of glory or of shame, should be allowed to prevail. But putting all other considerations aside, the only question should be; what course will save the life and liberty of the country?” Machiavelli emphasized that being a good politician doesn’t always necessarily equate to being a good person. However, Machiavelli never praised immorality.
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.
In The Rise of Conservatism in America, Story and Laurie have gathered different articles, newspaper sources, interviews, and addresses into a volume of documents that reflected the sudden increase of conservative values throughout American history. More historical figures spoke and pointed out the flaws of liberalism as it dominated the government until the early 1960s. As these documents point out the wrongs of liberalism, it also explains why the nation needed to reintroduce itself to conservatism. While both liberals and conservatives’ purpose was to find the best possible way for America to function, the conservatives sought out plans for traditionalism and in order to preserve the original wording of the United States’ democracy in response
Machiavelli states that it is “splendid” for a prince to have a reputation of generosity; and that a prince who is sincerely generous “will come to grief.” This is because if “a prince want to sustain a reputation of generosity, the prince must be ostentatiously lavish” in order to get the people’s attention. The prince who spends so abundantly he “will soon squander all his resources” and find himself forced “to impose extortionate taxes” on his people. This will make his people hate him. Thus, a prudent prince will “not mind being called a miser.”
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.
One instance of a Shakespearean character disagreeing with Machiavellian principles is Ferdinand from THE TEMPEST. Machiavellian principles are often not morally sound. In many cases, Machiavelli claims that corrupt traits are the best ones for the rulers of a state to exhibit. One of these claims occurs in Machiavelli’s THE
To Machiavelli, there is no morality in politics, only political virtue (Prudence). Prudence means knowing when to exhibit virtue or vice. As long as the Prince understands the role of Prudence, they will be successful. However, Machiavelli made an oversight.
Machiavelli states rulers should gain and maintain power by whatever means possible, even brutality and manipulation. Machiavelli also believed that commoners were only loyal to their leaders when their needs were met. He thought manipulation should be used to convince the commoners that their needs and interest were met. Overall, Machiavelli viewed the commoners as an essential source of power for leaders, felt they were somewhat challenging to control, and must be carefully governed to gain stability in the state and avoid insurrection (Machiavelli, 1532/2003).
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.
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.
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.
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.
