In Machiavelli’s The Prince, Machiavelli lays down the foundation for a new political science, or a scientific way to look at politics; a way to definitively predict the best way to rule over a nation and determine a ruler's best course of action. His new science of politics claims to provide a perfectly reliable system but it can never be reliable enough to be a true science. Throughout the book he provides frequent examples in politics and explains the reasoning behind why these events happened the way they did, even if it seemed miraculous or unpredictable. However, human nature and will is too inconsistent to claim any sort of accurate prediction. It is too idealistic to be able to predict human nature since there are countless variables …show more content…
Therefore there has to be strong evidence supporting Machiavelli’s claims or else the whole foundation of his science will collapse. Looking at a specific law of human nature, he reveals that people are “ungrateful, fickle, pretenders and dissemblers, evaders of danger, eager for gain"(M, 66) and that is a broad claim, so he needs substantial evidence to back it up. However, he doesn't do this— he provides anecdotes in the form of specific instances where men have been fickle or greedy, in fact, plenty of instances he provides throughout the book imply this, but the evidence he provides isn't enough to prove this to be a law. It all comes down to the fact that it is in human nature, as interdependent group animals who started out as hunters and gatherers and protected each other when survival was tough, to protect and help each other. Our entire concept of civilization could not have been built if it was not within our nature to help each other impulsively and rely on each other, thereby disproving this essential law. Machiavelli also says that any time a person does anything that does not overtly benefit them there is an underlying reason that gives said person some sort of gain. This is a fair assumption to make because sometimes this is the truth, but we are not biologically hardwired to do this, it is not within our nature and therefore it cannot be a law. One might claim that, with the introduction of capitalism and society, some are able to overcome instinct to be more self beneficial while some are not, and this is true, but not all are able to do so in every circumstance, for instance not everyone would kill someone else for personal gain, only a select few would, and it proves that it is impossible to predict what any person or a population would do since some can overcome instinct but