A Man for All Season and Machiavelli's Doctrine: Reiteration of History

Trying not to overstep the boundaries of the citizens to get kicked out of power or not doing enough that they replace you. With the power gained from leading it is expected that other princes will try to take power away so the only way to prevent this from happening is to make alliances and maintaining a strong military. Later on, in the novel Machiavelli goes on to focus on what qualities a prince should have and how virtu plays a role in making a proper prince. Although a short novel, it is Machiavelli’s most widely known work and is responsible for creating a negative view on rulers/politicians and also making it seem like anything you do, even immoral, is justifiable if the end goal is worth it. Machiavelli writes “He who neglects what is done for what ought to be done, sooner effects his ruin than his preservation” showing that the use of immoral means is justifiable when the end goal is survival and glory. This book follows the ideals of Italian humanism from the author being from Florence, the heart of the renaissance, dedicating the novel to Lorenzo de’ Medici, an example of a man who invested a lot in helping people learn about philosophy and such subjects to become better humanists.

In the play A Man For All Seasons by Robert Bolt the audience learns about the extraordinary life of Sir Thomas More. Sir Thomas is faced with a moral dilemma that will determine the outcome of his life. More, chancellor of England , and a strong Christian believer is forced to choose between his close friend, King Henry VIII, and the supreme lord his God. More is a man of moral integrity because he refuses to submit to external pressures to sign the oath condoning the Act of Supremacy. He follows his heart and soul in doing what he believes to be right no matter what the consequence.

Machiavelli concentrated more on the way things should be and how to manipulate them for his own personal gain rather than for the betterment of the state. He was well-known for being a political thinker who believed that outcomes justified why things happened. A key aspect of Machiavelli’s concept of the Prince was that “men must either be caressed or annihilated” (Prince, 9). What Machiavelli meant by

Machiavelli’s interpretation of human nature was greatly shaped by his belief in God. In his writings, Machiavelli conceives that humans were given free will by God, and the choices made with such freedom established the innate flaws in humans. Based on that, he attributes the successes and failure of princes to their intrinsic weaknesses, and directs his writing towards those faults. His works are rooted in how personal attributes tend to affect the decisions one makes and focuses on the singular commanding force of power. Fixating on how the prince needs to draw people’s support, Machiavelli emphasizes the importance of doing what is best for the greater good. He proposed that working toward a selfish goal, instead of striving towards a better state, should warrant punishment. Machiavelli is a practical person and always thought of pragmatic ways to approach situations, applying to his notions regarding politics and

The Prince, a book written by Niccolo Machiavelli, was seen as a text about its coherent perspectives and noble concepts of Leadership. There is a term called “Machiavellian”. This term refers to “the belief that a ruler is justified in using any means necessary to stay in power”. Many people can point out many corrupt scandalous government officials that use deception and dishonesty to maintain their power or title. This

Niccolo Machiavelli, a political philosopher and diplomat during the Renaissance, wrote based on his belief as result of incidents he had actually experienced. "His works often contrast two forces: luck (one's fortune) and character (one's virtues)."p.35 Machiavelli's writings on "The Qualities of the Prince" focus on advise for monarchial leaders to follow in order to keep their power. Machiavelli's main theory is that princes should retain absolute control of their territories, and they should use any means, and do what ever it takes to achieve this goal. The adjective "Machiavellian" has become despised and it is used to describe a politician who manipulates others in an opportunistic and deceptive way.

History 's most prominent leaders have shown extreme congruence. These leaders almost always hold reality over ethics. How can we classify lying and manipulative leaders as immoral when their duplicity is the very reason a society can maintain stability? This idea has of "means justifying the ends" has been a staple in History 's most prosperous of societies. Machiavelli 's novel The Prince was the first stab at understanding this human tendency of what is now known as Machiavellian. Machiavelli grasped the sad reality of our world and did not fall prey to other 's idealistic propaganda. Great leaders understand what the endless potential they hold, they can manipulate their followers to make best of what is possible and above all they understand sacrifice. Modern day Machiavellians and successful leaders think realistically and communicate through idealism. No matter the extremes of your belief, utilizing Machiavellian tactics have the capability to bring anyone to power.

Niccolo Machiavelli’s The Prince give the world an insight on his thought about those who rule, virtue, military power, and human nature. He elaborates on his ideal prince who must take power, but also maintain power. The Prince is extremely relevant in modern society and often looked upon as the beginning of modern political thinking. Machiavelli gives this prince an outline of the tools needed to maintain power and reinforces these ideas by giving examples of other leader’s successes and failures. Machiavelli believes that the prince must complete understand the balance between war and government. Understanding this balance and being fluent in both politics and war is crucial for maintaining power. Politicians today still use some of the tactics given by

Machiavelli brought up many controversial and untraditional points regarding what a kingdom or prince was allowed to do to maintain power. The most extreme, being that the prince wasn't held to any moral code in the practice of maintaining power. A prince must be prepared to ward off any conflicting power even if it means breaking traditional moral codes. Other powers, Machiavelli believed, wouldn't be so kind in combat and a prince must fight back with equal or greater force. Another point is that it's better to be feared than loved. Machiavelli believed that love didn't

The Prince is essentially a guide book on how to acquire and maintain political power. We can think of it as a collection of rules and methods to achieve a level of superior authority. Its main focus is that the ends—no matter how immoral—justify the means for preserving political authority. While some may agree with this mindset of thinking many today dismiss Machiavelli as a cynic. The book shows rulers how it is that they should act to survive in the real world to maintain authority. While Niccolo Machiavelli’s ideas can be radical, they helped to spark a revolution in political philosophy. Although his ideas might have not been completely original, they were very different and unheard of at the time, The Prince, was published. Machiavelli uses many methods to convey his messages including biblical comparisons and of course metaphors. This character can be viewed in several manners. He is almighty and powerful, stopping at nothing to achieve his goals or have his ways. While this quality does qualify him to be a might leader it also raises the question of immorality. How far will one go to maintain order? Would you stop at nothing to achieve this task? Machiavelli shows this by saying, “it is

When people are put into different situations they must act accordingly. When their life is in danger they must do what it takes to survive, and when a man is made prince he must adjust to his situation. He must act accordingly so that he can remain in power. Machiavelli feels that a price should be generous, but not so generous that he loses everything in the process. Machiavelli says, “… for when he is poor, nobody will respect him.” The prince gets his money from the people, and to give them everything that they want he would have to increase taxes and that would anger his people. Machiavelli is right when it comes to a prince being generous. You must be generous enough that your people remain happy and respectful, but stingy enough that you do not end up poor trying to please them.

People are unlikely to overthrow a ruler that they fear, for they dread the punishments of failure. If the ruler is not feared by the people, he will eventually upset enough of them that they will rise up against him. They will overthrow him because of his perceived weakness, and his name and image will be shamed in the eyes of both his government and his people. Machiavelli believes that the state is completely separate from the ruler’s private life. No matter how immoral or heartless the ruler may be in private, only his public image is important. A ruler can be a terrible, sleazy person on their own time, and when not involved with matters of the state, but at any time when the leader is involved in politics and the state, you cannot afford to injure the image of the ruler or else anarchy will develop. With this kind of rebellion can come revolution, war, and many other tragedies that could be otherwise avoided.

When reading Niccolo Machiavelli's The Prince, one can't help but grasp Machiavelli's argument that morality and politics can not exist in the same forum. However, when examining Machiavelli's various concepts in depth, one can conclude that perhaps his suggested violence and evil is fueled by a moral end of sorts. First and foremost, one must have the understanding that this book is aimed solely at the Prince or Emperor with the express purpose of aiding him in maintaining power. Therefore, it is essential to grasp his concepts of fortune and virtue. These two contrary concepts reflect the manner in which a Prince should govern while minimizing all chance and uncertainty. This kind of governing demands violence to be taken, however

"Machiavelli identifies the interests of the prince with the interests of the state." He felt that it was human nature to be selfish, opportunistic, cynical, dishonest, and gullible, which in essence, can be true. The state of nature was one of conflict; but conflict, Machiavelli reasoned, could be beneficial under the organization of a ruler. Machiavelli did not see all men as equal. He felt that some men were better suited to rule than others. I believe that this is true in almost any government. However, man in general, was corrupt -- always in search of more power. He felt that because of this corruptness, an absolute monarch was necessary to insure stability. Machiavelli outlined what characteristics this absolute ruler should have in The Prince. One example of this can be seen in his writings concerning morality. He saw the Judeo-Christian values as faulty in the state's success. "Such visionary expectations, he held, bring the state to ruin, for we do not live in the world of the "ought," the fanciful utopia, but in the world of "is". The prince's role was not to promote virtue, but to insure security. He reasoned that the Judeo-Christian values would make a ruler week if he actually possessed them, but that they could be useful in dealing with the citizens if the prince seemed to have these qualities. Another example of Machiavelli's ideal characteristics of a prince

Niccolo Machiavelli was the first to clearly decipher politics from ethics by studying politics in such depth and thought. He created the basis of what politics should be and how they are runned for today. His book The Prince is primarily a handbook for all rulers to follow to be the most successful in their reign. His book is considered political realism which means he speaks about only the truth of politics, so it can be used for the practice of governing. Machiavelli’s book is the handbook for obtaining and maintaining power even for today’s modern politics.