Was Machiavelli's Ideal To Be Liberal Or Recluse
Recommended: Machiavelli on leadership
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.
In the beginning, Machiavelli says the ruler should not be concerned with what his people want; however, this does not mean the ruler should not be concerned about having support from his people. Machiavelli simply means a ruler should not go about understanding exactly what the people want and trying to fulfill the needs of the people. A ruler should know whether or not this support exists, and if it does not, he should go about his own ways to acquire this support. Machiavelli talks about different methods to gain this support, but mostly he stresses the importance of the support in helping maintain a calm and controlled rule. Internal support and agreement is crucial in any form of rule.
In Niccolo Machiavelli's book, The Prince (1513), he evaluates on how a prince can be a successful leader. Machiavelli’s purpose of this guidebook was to construct his argument to the rising ruler Giuliano de Medici for when he comes to power in Florence. He adopts a casual but authoritative tone in order to convince the prince that Machiavelli’s evaluation on how to be the best prince, is the right thing for the prince to do without coming off as he knows more than the prince or is trying to intimidate him.. Machiavelli’s reference to previous rulers and whether their tactics failed or succeeded helps to benefit his credibility along with his allusion to historic text. He appeals to our logic by simply stating a prince can only do what is within his power to control, and his use of an analogy furthers his argument.
He urges those in power that if they “ want to keep their post must learn how not to be good, and use that knowledge, or refrain from using it, as necessity requires” (863). His ideas are actually showing that people in power remain so because they have the ability to do good but avoid doing so. Public policy is based on principles, yet politicians don’t create public policies that can do good for the people because they fear loss of power. In this case he is utilizing public policy to protect his power and therefore defending his personal interest. Furthering claims, he asserts “Since a prince cannot use this virtue of liberality in such as to become known for it unless he harms his own security”(865).
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
Therefore, he believed that a political ruler has to make immoral decisions occasionally for the sake of the state. Instead of the following the standard ethical principles, Machiavelli proposed a different form of virtue for princes to adopt, in which they aim for the preservation and advancement of
Aah! Gnosticism, Possibly the earliest of all heresies addressed by the church in the 1st century. Rampant thru the 1st and 2nd century see also Docetism and Montanists, Carpocrates, Basilides, Valentinus. Gnosticisms flow into the early church is believed to be the subject of the book of Jude ( Jude a book of scripture canonical, historical very unlike Barnabus). Truly an insidious heresy in that it infects its promoters with a heightened sense of self worth due to their 'receiving' secret knowledge.
Machiavelli generally believes that laws are good when followed naturally from a good military. He even states that war is necessary and is generally the cause of states that are well-formed and successful. Throughout the book, the idea of a good war is created along with how to fortify cities, treat newly found humans in new territories, and to prevent problems with domestic politics. He also believes that more than just the military is needed throughout a war. International diplomacy, geography, history, and tactical strategy are all described by the author.
He believes anyone can rule a polis if they have virtu. Once a ruler, a simple rule to follow to maintain power and not to be hated by the people, is to “not take away a man’s possession or woman”, Machiavelli believes the people will not feel threaten by following this rule, thus maintaining a stable polis. He expresses how “human nature never changes”, and that people are self-interested and they can turn against you once you are not profiting them. A good ruler must have the strength to do whatever it takes to obtain and maintain power, which essentially means that even if they have to hurt some of the people for the benefit of the popular mass, then they shall do so for the greater cause. Both Plato and Machiavelli believe that there must be a government in order for human kind to survive.
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).
He also categorized humanity into two categories. Those who want power, and those who are suspicious of the ones who want power. No matter how expertly a prince may utilize prudence, the people will always be suspicious of the Prince. Suspicious people will never be fully obedient. The Prince never has full control and power over their people.
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
According to him, rulers should know their respective limits when it comes to the force and violence they inflict. Machiavelli believes that maximizing betrayal, deception and other cruel acts aren’t considered talents. Although these methods are effective in gaining empire, these don’t help in getting glory. Therefore, using violence and cruelty may be necessary but should have limits. The prince must know up to what extent his violence should be inflicted upon and he must do it all at once to avoid the hatred and resentment from 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 simply expressed that power and morality are independent of each other. When these two viewpoints come to collision, it depends on who faces the alternative. Moralists can recognize the superiority of the moral code over the competing value system while the ecclesiastic will not admit a rival to its religious code. Similarly, the statesman will be guided solely by the principle of his code whose end is different from other codes and whose means are therefore different, too. (Ebenstein & Ebenstein, p. 318) Machiavelli was particularly pessimistic.
More about Was Machiavelli's Ideal To Be Liberal Or Recluse
First Global Age Analysis
716 Words | 3 PagesComparing Machiavelli's The Prince And Julius Caesar
1120 Words | 5 PagesThe Prince Rhetorical Analysis
676 Words | 3 PagesComparing The Morals Of Prince And Letter From Birmingham Jail
837 Words | 4 PagesThomas Jefferson And Niccolo Machiavelli's The Morals Of The Prince
762 Words | 4 PagesHow Does Machiavelli Support Secular Humanism
688 Words | 3 PagesGnosticism In The Book Of Jude
382 Words | 2 PagesThree Beasts In Dante's Inferno
1057 Words | 5 PagesPlato Vs Machiavelli
429 Words | 2 PagesMachiavelli's Views On Commoners
469 Words | 2 PagesMachiavelli: The Existence Of Selfish Individualism
1012 Words | 5 PagesQualities Of A Good Man In Machiavelli's The Prince
1284 Words | 6 PagesPrincipality In The Prince
1652 Words | 7 PagesErasmus Vs Machiavelli
1034 Words | 5 PagesNiccolo Machiavelli Summary
1371 Words | 6 Pages