Comparing Nicolo Machiavelli 's The Prince

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

unique voices. While some philosophers have similar opinions on what it takes to be an effective leader, such as intelligence and worldliness, there are many that disagree on traits they find beneficial. The reasons for these disagreements are vast but one of the crucial factors are the societies and historical eras these authors were nurtured within. Through their own experiences with government and turmoil, philosophers are able to give their critiques on government and human nature as a whole. Socrates and Machiavelli, both philosophers in what it means to be a proper leader and the role of the people within a society, share contrasting views.

In The Prince, Machiavelli explains what a good and successful prince should be like. He advocates a strong, cutthroat authority figure and encourages the winning of power by any means necessary. The main theme in The Prince is that mob rule is dangerous, for people know only what is good for themselves and not what is good for the whole. The common people, in Machiavelli’s view, “are ungrateful, fickle, liars, and deceivers, they shun danger and are greedy for profit; while you treat them well, they are yours”. He believes that these commoners should be

His qualification simultaneous fortifies and undermines his argument. At first glance, Machiavelli’s stance seems to dismiss the counter argument, as he concedes a ruler “ought to be both loved and feared; but … it is difficult to accomplish both at the same time” (51). He forces his idealized ruler to pick one, and herein lies the fissure within Machiavelli’s pessimistic argument. A true sense of love must include a sense of fear; a fear that the lover has for failing his beloved. For a truly devoted and loving noble, failing his prince should steer him from betrayal and towards loyalty. Machiavelli disregards—or is even oblivious to—a wholistic definition of love. Clouded by his pessimism, Machiavelli believes man’s own sense of self-preservation can easily trump his enslavement to

Throughout the course of history, political philosophy has been dominated by two great thinkers: Niccolo Machiavelli and Socrates. Although both highly influential, Socrates and Machiavelli may not see eye to eye. When it comes to the idea of how an “ideal prince” would act, Machiavelli believes that they should lead through fear and follow a thirst for power, no matter the cost. Socrates, on the other hand, believes that they should lead through morality and have a healthy thirst for knowledge. Overall, these two would not exactly agree on what the actions of a good leader would look like or how a political system should be run.

A family of monarchy which tortured Machiavelli for months causing him great suffrage and sorrow. He writes to Lorenzo “May I trust, therefore, that Your Highness will accept this little gift in the spirit in which it is offered: and if Your Highness will deign to peruse it, you will recognize in it my ardent desire that you may attain to that grandeur which fortune and your own merits presage for you.” This enough is confusing because if this is the same principality that caused so much suffering why dedicate a book to let their reign continue into longevity? As to add to this confusion, Machiavelli explains how a prince should use cruelty and violence correctly against the people. To use cruelty and punishment all at once so that the people learn to respect you by fear. He includes that if you had a choice on either being loved or feared, be feared for love can change as quick as it came. Fear of punishment, people would avoid and be subservient. He also goes on to put out that a prince must be cunning like a fox yet strong and fearsome like a lion. To use Realpolitik, morality and ideology left out for the world is not these things as you should not be as well. Furthermore, Machiavelli explains what must happen when a new ruler overtakes a new city and the people in it. “And whoever becomes the ruler of a free city and does not destroy it, can expect to be destroyed by it,

Machiavelli has long been required reading for everyone intrested in politics and power. In The Prince Niccolo M

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

Niccolo Machiavelli and Karl Marx developed theories concerning wealth and poverty in our society, as well as different types of governments. For instance, Machiavelli supported a capitalist economic system, unlike Marx, who embraced socialism in the society. Machiavelli wrote a book "The Prince" that explained how to be an effective leader. The theme of the book is "the end justifies the means." A person could or should do whatever is necessary to achieve the desired goal. According to Machiavelli, there is no concept of a perfect ruler, but only effective or ineffective leaders. Therefore, he claims that there are no fair fighters, but only losers and winners. Contrary, Marx embraced democracy as good practice for the government. This paper will analyze whether Marx would buy Machiavelli 's thought that states "desired ends justify undesirable means" (Weng 1).

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 this

First let us discuss the ideas of Niccolo Machiavelli in is piece “The Prince”. Machiavelli has a very independent controversial way of thinking and portraying his ideal form of governance in this text. The ideal and most effective from of governance for him is not in that of a republic but instead he insists in an autocratic regime. He argues that republics and other forms of government are too weak because of the corruptness of human nature. This book is written as a guide on how a prince should run his state or nation based on how and when he would come into this power. One of his main concerns in which he has been criticized for is his disregard to follow moral values so as to properly run the state, as well as

Histories have seen many of those gigantic powers who have no mercy on human being, people who used the concept of Machiavelli. Our brain is not a machine and working with food, water and air, they are not all the same. Each one is created in a way genetically and the initializes of someone’s life integrated. Thinking about and expressing meaning for the existences around is I different, so as this is happens, each one takes the prince’s ideology in their way. And I think most of who used it, beginning from the dictators and democratic reached a way, but for some lost the track and reached a dead-end, and for some reached the evaluation of their acts.

Next it must be proved that Machiavelli believes men by nature are cruel and corrupt. When talking about the necessity of cruelty in leaders, he says, “a man who wants to make a profession of good in all regards must come to ruin among so many who are not good”(p.61). Here he seems to believe that the general populace is not good. He does not allude to any choices that would cause this cruelty, so we can infer that he believes humans by nature are corrupt. He discourses on qualities that are praised in a prince such as faith, humanity, and honesty but laments that “he cannot have them, nor wholly observe them, since human conditions do not permit it”(p.62). These human conditions that Machiavelli refers to must be the corruption of man, as there is no other reason for a prince to not observe these qualities. If men were good, it would be obvious for a prince to rule with good virtues, but since they are not he must adjust his morals to fit his people’s. In addition to this, he teaches the prince to use one of two kinds of combat when it comes to ruling the people: one with beasts and one with man. Having never mentioned ruling animals before, the reader can conclude that he is referring to men who are wicked by nature. He explains that one must use laws with man and force with

Considering the context of Machiavelli’s The Prince (1513) and his viewpoints regarding the expansion of European power, the purpose of this piece was to serve as a manual for rulers, essentially. Machiavelli treated historical evidence as grounds to real situations in a sensible way. When discussing human nature, he claims that there is a gap between how one lives and how one should live. The Prince