More handpicked essays just for you.
Machiavelli concept of human nature
Machiavelli opposing viewpoints
Machiavelli philosophy to the contemporary world
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Machiavelli concept of human nature
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.
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).
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
In 1513, Niccolo Machiavelli wrote “The Prince,” telling rulers how they should rule. (Document 1) Many of the ideas in his book are shown in the ways these rulers governed their people. King Louis XIV believed if there were multiple people had power more would take advantage of it (Document 3) which is a major idea from “The Prince,” stating “for love is held by a bond of obligation, which, as men are wicked, is broken whenever personal advantage suggests it.” (Document 1).
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
The trick to staying in control was to recognize the needs of the people. The argument that Machiavelli portrayed in the Prince, was how an individual handles a situation, whether it is serendipitous luck or free will. “Many believe that governing the affairs of the world are governed by luck and God, not even intelligent individuals can control them. Therefore, one should allow chance to have its way” (Machiavelli, 550). Elaborating on this argument, many people believe that if something goes wrong, gamble on luck.
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
Machiavelli lived in a time dominated by Christian thinkers and his thought was outside the boundaries of their beliefs. Machiavelli teachings focused on how one could achieve worldly success and valuing the things of the earth without Christian thinking. To further support his argument, Machiavelli says “Our experience has been that those princes who have done great things have held food faith of little account”. The princes that he believed to have done great things are those such as Alexander the XI and Chiron the Centaur. Machiavelli’s teachings focused on worldly figures instead of religious figures.
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.
Machiavelli’s ides were not wicked, malicious or evil; his ideas are based on facts on how to accomplish goals of maintaining order and doing what needs to be done. Machiavelli’s asks the question “How best can a ruler maintain control of his state?” His ideas were not based on emotion or empathy. Instead theory for government
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.
