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. Despite this, he notes that a ruler must avoid his people hating him. A hated ruler possesses no power since the people hold the power. Therefore, a ruler can be miserly, unfaithful, and ruthless, but they must appear to be the opposite. Machiavelli concludes that it is important for a ruler to balance his reputation and his actions, which I agree with, however others may argue that a ruler can posses both qualities. Machiavelli’s first suggests that a powerful ruler cannot be a good person. A good person, someone who is “merciful, faithful, kind, religious, upright”, cannot be a good ruler(Machiavelli, 55). He claims that “anyone who wants to act the part of a good man … will bring about his own ruin”(48). Acting as a good man will not bring a …show more content…
A leader’s cruelty enables him to make the decisions necessary for the kingdom, while also being miserly to keep the people happy. I think that Machiavelli’s advice provides a sound basis on how leaders today can lead. On other hand, others may argue that Machiavelli’s advice leads rulers astray and rather rulers should be kind and generous because morally that is the right thing to do. No matter the interpretation of how a ruler should lead, Machiavelli's analyst of a leaders provides insight into everyday life and causes leaders today to think about how they