There were two concepts when it came to the holocaust and how it was governed. Hannah Arendt believed everything was possible and went into her theory of totalitarianism and total domination. She reveals obscurity and questioned whether the Nazis really achieved total domination. Machiavelli’s concept was The Prince, and how as a leader, one should only have the authority that would finalize every facet and put in action a policy, which would adhere to his best likings. In my concept, I agree with Machiavelli and Arendt when both state a prince should be “feared” and how totalitarianism was used for total domination.
Machiavelli’s discussion on The Prince reveals the qualities of a prince and goes into depth on how it is better to be feared than to be loved. Machiavelli discussed how fear conserves leadership better. Men are afraid of punishment when it comes to fear and in the concept of love, man’s interests break because of the ties of obligation. When these two statements are being compared to the Holocaust, Machiavelli would side with Hitler. He states how a leader should make
…show more content…
In the older times, the laws were stricter and the people were more loyal to the sense where they were not executed for being human, they were executed for committing a crime or not abiding by the law. When in 1933-1945, one would be executed for having characteristics of humanity without actually committing a crime. In a way, Machiavelli would and would not agree with Hitler’s form of execution. His intentions were not to dehumanize a population but to have a better structure. Arendt would also disagree with Hitler’s form of leadership because she believed Jewry was not the operative factor in the Holocaust, but a substitute in the reason for it. Once he became in charge of Germany, she moved to
The most alarming thing about Arendt's book is that she is able to make a compelling case that the greatest evils of mankind are committed by ordinary people. Her work forces one to look at the world and realize that the Holocaust was not an isolated incident committed by blood thirsty sociopaths. One must realize that the decision making processes that created an environment accepting of the "Final Solution" is still alive an well today as it has been throughout history. The weight of personal moral choice
Thesis: A key concept to understanding Hannah Arendt’s “Total Domination” is the essence of terror and the importance of concentration camps in maintaining the Nazi totalitarian state.
Monarchs would take into account Machiavelli's philosophy and impose his teachings onto their nations to obtain absolute rule. In Machiavelli's book, The Prince, he stated, "It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot
Machiavelli and Hobbes shared the same views on that the Sovereign or Prince should implement rules that benefit them first while having the best interest of the people in mind. The difference being that the sovereign for Hobbes should exude the collective will of all the people while Machiavelli would argue for a Prince who would make more difficult decisions that might not be in line with the wants of the people in order to achieve certain ends. If fear is what keeps the people alive for Hobbes; than Machiavelli on the use of fear through punishment on behalf of the prince is in line with his philosophy... “The bond of love is one which men, wretched creatures they are, break when it is to their advantage to do so; but fear is strengthened by a dread of punishment which is always effective” The use of fear by the Sovereign runs very powerfully with Hobbes so that the people will
Machiavelli led us to a question that was continuously in disagreement. That question was “Is it better to be loved than feared, or vice versa” (p.392)? Machiavelli thought that one is to be loved & feared. Nevertheless, at the same time it’s tremendously hard to achieve being both loved & feared. Machiavelli believed that if one had to do without one of them that it would be a safer to be feared than to be loved. For example if a ruler was more loved than feared then if you served their men’s interest & were also devoted to them they would promise you their blood, possessions, lives, & children until you needed help because once you needed help you were on our own. If you’re more feared than loved then when you’re in trouble your
He discusses that the prince have military knowledge, love and fear, trustworthiness, and good and bad reputations. He deeply believes in the art of war. "...a prince must not have any objective nor any thought, nor take up any art, other than the art of war and its ordering and discipline; because it is the only art that pertains to him who commands. And it is of such virtue that not only does it maintain those who were born princes, but many times makes men rise to that rank from private station; and conversely one sees that when princes have thought more of delicacies than of arms, they have lost their state." He also writes about whether it is better to be loved or feared, stating that it is best to be feared, but not hated. Love can change in an instant, and it is better to always have control, even if the prince must be feared. Patriotism and dedication to the state was also a very important aspect. In conclusion, Machiavelli strived for power and strength by any means possible. Through violence and fear, the end result would be worth it to him.
Machiavelli also presents the idea that the power of a leader depends more on the qualities of the man than on of god. Thats the matter, loved and feared-qualities need there limits the same way as anything else in a social relation. Machiavelli himself stating that a man who makes himself loved than who makes himself feared; the reason is that love is a link to obligation, which men, because they are rotten, and will break any time soon. Machiavelli complicates the nation of good as purely subordinate power, arguing that the excess of “good” can actually do harm. In this case too much clemency can lead to uprisings and civil war. Cruelty what Machiavelli believes in, states that it can serve the greater good. I personally disagree with Machiavelli's text, I think love is stronger than fear. A commander loved by his soldiers will defeat a commander feared by his soldiers in almost all battles, but the feared commander is less subject to arbitrary chance. Its not only love that can destroy a man, so can fear.
Hannah Arendt’s essay suggests she believes that the motives steered by Adolf Eichmann to commit monstrous acts, where “once banal to all human” ( Arendt, Cp). Eichmann was viewed as a demonic monster for his immoral and corrupted mind. Banal evil shares similarities with Radical evil, such that they can both result in extraordinary evil. Unlike radical evil, banal evil can be committed by ordinary people. Eichmann lacked the ability to reflect and he seemed to think in terms of clichés as his goal was to follow Hitler’s orders to undo God’s creation and complete his job successfully and
Throughout The Prince, Machiavelli encourages the idea that a fear leader is a good leader. Machiavelli makes the point that a good leader knows that it is, “far safer to be feared than loved” (Machiavelli 43) because love allows for weakness. It is easy to keep people under control and in line when they fear their leader because they do not want to have to face consequences that come with “doing wrong”. When a leader is loved, some many look at this as a weakness. Those who fear their leader are is less likely to curate rebellions and revolts because they know that their leader is not afraid of applying punishment. When a ruler is too kind to their subjects it leaves them vulnerable and they are easily taken advantage of, which threatens their position. For a good leader should, “desire to be accounted merciful and not cruel”, and needs to,
Arendt explains that the ultimate power of a totalitarian government is the acceptance of the ideology being propagated. The laws that are put into place in totalitarian government are not to empower the people and protect their rights. Instead, the laws tell the people what they must do, not what they must not do. Arendt tells how the law of nature is the foundation for Hitler's Nazis, and the law of history for Russia's communist regimes. According to Arendt, both the Nazi and communist regimes maintained that those laws gave them justification for their cruelty. These laws of nature and history are not permanent or stable. They are in motion to keep history and nature moving, so that it progresses without ever stopping. <p>Arendt claims that these laws of motion sustain the terror fueling the totalitarian government. Arendt says that terror is the realization and execution of these laws with nothing standing in its way. Throughout the selection, Arendt speaks of terror. Terror is essential for the state to keep its power, or else it will fall. According to Arendt, in a totalitarian state terror terminates individuality among the people. Individual men become a mass of humankind, in the eyes of the state. "Terror exists neither for nor against men", claims Arendt, "it substitutes for the boundaries and channels of communication between individual men a band of iron which holds them so tightly
He made us aware on how so many individuals knowingly participated in the atrocious acts of violence against humanity and without much hesitance. He provided us the formula and a clear explanation on Max Weber views and how it was all possible for the bureaucratic domination of Germany, and the consequences of such power. Max Weber “was convinced that political domination would rest with whoever controlled the bureaucratic apparatus because of its indisputable superiority as an instrument for the organization of human action”. (Rubenstein, 23) Nazi Germany mastered the use of power and the management principles, this can be observed in Hitler’s organization of the concentration camps. Hitler replaced the existence camps with a more impersonal, systematized terror” camps. (Rubenstein, 24) Hitler and Nazi Germany established order in the camps, by applying bureaucracy principles. They established specialization, providing a meaning of set task and responsibilities each office and individual will handle and follow, making their job simpler and more efficient in following directions. They appointed individuals to ensure the written rules and regulations installed were being followed. This assured that individuals knew their responsibilities and made it easier for their assigned task to be completed. This also created recordkeeping of the rules, procedures and disciplinary actions.
Horror struck on January 30, 1933, when Germany assigned Adolf Hitler as their chancellor. Once Hitler had finally reached power he set out to complete one goal, create a Greater Germany free from the Jews (“The reasons for the Holocaust,” 2009). This tragedy is known today as, “The Holocaust,” that explains the terrors of our histories past. The face of the Holocaust, master of death, and leader of Germany; Adolf Hitler the most deceitful, powerful, well spoken, and intelligent person that acted as the key to this mass murder. According to a research study at the University of South Florida, nearly eleven million people were targeted and killed. This disaster is a genocide that was meant to ethnically cleanse Germany of the Jews. Although Jewish people were the main target they were not the only ones targeted; gypsies, African Americans, homosexuals, socialists, political enemies, communists, and the mentally disabled were killed (Simpson, 2012, p. 113). The word to describe this hatred for Jewish people is known as antisemitism. It was brought about when German philosophers denounced that “Jewish spirit is alien to Germandom” (“Antisemitism”) which states that a Jew is non-German. Many people notice the horrible things the Germans did, but most don’t truly understand why the Holocaust occurred. To truly understand the Holocaust, you must first know the Nazis motivations. Their motivations fell into two categories including cultural explanations that focused on ideology and
This paper tries to elaborate the similarities and differences between Nicolo Machiavelli and Hannah Arendt in understanding the role of illusions and lies in politics. Most governments face challenges in the way they control their subjects because all politicians have been lying through their false promises (Arendt 10). Their ideas have been coinciding and at other times, they have been differing in their respective arguments. Arguments from Machiavelli and Arendt have introduced the concept of governing mentality into political philosophy. There have been issues such as lies in politics which have erected political philosophy around the problem of sovereignty, prohibition and law.
"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
Machiavelli uses a compound-complex sentence to inform those who want to be a leader the need of malevolent. Machiavelli uses an independent and dependent clause to gain attention from audience with the purpose of clearing his idea. For Machiavelli’s long sentences in the end of the first paragraph, the prince “profession of virtue” will get “destroyed” by other evil. This cause and effect sentence help the audience to have an images of the impossible of a perfect pure personality of a leader. He warn those who want to be a leader that the prince should be wise and knowing when to act evil rather than good. Moreover, he lists good and bad adjectives such as “cruel” and “compassionate” to imply that a good ruler need to be both moral and immoral. .After all the conventional moral advice, he convey to the prince that action that appear good will damage his position, prince’s power, while those that depict as bad will enhance it.