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.
“Although one should not reason about Moses, as he was a mere executor of things that had been ordered for him by God, nonetheless he should be admired if only for that grace which made him so deserving of speaking with God” (22). In the context of The Prince, this statement proves to be duplicitous because Machiavelli claims that he will not reason about Moses, but then uses the following pages to do precisely that. Furthermore, Machiavelli draws extensively from the actions of Moses and the Old Testament God, although Machiavelli is often regarded as an antagonist of the Church. Machiavelli’s handbook for princes consists of concrete advice for rulers that directly reflect the more abstracted stories in Exodus. For instance, Machiavelli’s description of human nature in The Prince mirrors Moses’ experiences as the leader of the Israelites in Exodus.
As the moral values in Italy at the time where largely influenced by the teachings of the Christian bible, it is safe to assume his ideas of morality was those put forth by the church. Thus, by condoning immoral acts and asserting that they are necessary at times, he is rejecting Christian teachings pertaining to moral conduct. For example by excusing Romulus' murder, Machiavelli is essentially disregarding one of the Christian commandments: "thou shalt not kill", hence disregarding Christian ideals. On top of that, by approving of interferences in principality such as Romulus' killing of his own brother, Machiavelli is also rejecting the notion that all events are the divine will of God and that it is pointless to try and change one's fate (Skinner 1981 p.g 32). In other words, by favouring Romulus' overthrowing of his brother, Machiavelli is implying that humans have control over their own destiny and are not just subjected to the divine will of God, which is a common belief is secular humanism(Skinner 1981 p.g 32-33).
In the book, Machiavelli writes, “It is better to be feared than loved”. This statement reflects Machiavelli’s belief that rulers should be willing to do whatever is necessary to maintain power, even if it means using fear and violence to control their subjects. Machiavelli’s political ideology was a product of the historical and cultural context in which he lived. The Renaissance was a time of political and social upheaval, and Machiavelli’s philosophy of power and control was a response to the challenges of his
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.
Machiavelli’s book also suggests that a ruler should be feared by everyone that dares to face him. At this time, one ruler appeared to be more daunting than a chain of command. Another major idea spread during this time period was the idea of a social contract, from “Leviathan” by Thomas Hobbes. He explains that if two people desire the same thing which they cannot both enjoy, they will end up destroying each other. Two people should be able to lay down their right to all things and be contempt with having as much as another person has, instead of trying to fight with them in order to gain more.
This passage represented a new cultural perspective, as it reinforced the idea of individualism and led people to spread more secular ideas. Conversely, the book also provided insight to many rulers, who at the time found his book to be a great tool to achieve and secure more power. Ergo, we can instantly recognize that the book, The Prince, foreshadowed the upcoming reformation of Christianity as many rulers, such as Cesare Borgia, used Machiavelli’s amoral tactics to achieve their political successes instead of relying on the Church’s support. This reinforced individualist philosophy in Europe and ran counter to traditional Christian belief. Overall, the book shifted the view of
If Machiavelli, in The Prince, had directly mentioned his morals, then it may have collided with morals of Medici, making his predicament
Politically speaking, Machiavelli sets himself apart form other political theorist because of his blunt approach. His work is still relevant today because today’s world still emulates much of Machiavelli’s fundamentals. Today’s democracy is more liberal than he ever imaged, yet is more prone to corruption. The fundamental ideas behind The Prince and The Discourses can still be useful when discussing current political issues such as equality, class warfare and conflict.
Niccolo Machiavelli was a standout amongst the well-known philosophers of the Italian Renaissance. He exhibited a drastically unique view of how a prince should run his state than other political philosophers of the time. From his perception of Italian governmental issues and the Medici Family, he believed that Italy required a ruler who could take control over the state and maintain its political power. With this new perspective of politics, Machiavelli wrote his most famous book, The Prince, to draw a line among politics and morals, and accentuated how human nature should attribute to the state should continue to maintain its statue by analyzing historical facts and events. Machiavelli seemed to have a critical look regarding human nature.
I think Machiavelli’s belief that a ruler should only be concerned with power and success is wrong because if you are a leader of a country you should think about what’s good for the people of your country first over what’s good for you. In the renaissance period it seems the leaders was more worried about what was good for their own pockets than what is good for the people of their country. Most leaders during the renaissance era based their success on how many wars they won or how much money they could swindle out of the poor people in their country. I believe in order to be a true leader in the country today it is important to look at what is good and beneficial for the people and what will enrich your country and make it better for the
It is the purpose of this paper is to review the book titled, The Prince, by Niccolo Machiavelli, translated by W. K. Marriott. Niccolo Machiavelli wrote The Prince well over 500 years ago during period after, which he had fallen out of a place of power in the very political arena of Italy in 1512. This book is too many who have recently read and interpreted the work, refer to it as a road map of sorts to gain, maintain, and control one’s self interest in a seat of power, Machiavelli’s entity for this, a prince. Although at times this roadmaps interpretation results in a vilified view, resulting in the adjective Machiavellian, used to describe calculating, deceiving, or merciless, it is by no means such a guide. In fact, the book could
One can begin to see the development of political philosophy and political science through these three texts. Confucius mostly created the realm of political philosophy by studying past rulers and gathering a group of disciples. With the Analects, he told people how they could better themselves and become leaders, and once they became leaders how they should lead through being a role model of sorts for the society to follow. Plato kind of expanded on Confucius ideas when he built his perfect city in The Republic. He further developed the system of specialization where each citizen chose their respective trade to do solely so they could professionalize and supply the city with their product.
According to Machiavelli, a prince who keeps his promises is generally praised. But history demonstrates that most success is achieved when princes are crafty, tricky and able to deceive others. A prince can fight or succeed by using law or by using force. The use of law comes naturally to men and the use of force comes naturally to beasts. Hence, to achieve success, the prince must learn to fight with a balance between both law and force.
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.
