In The Prince by Machiavelli, he explains how a prince must acquire and maintain power in his nation. As he further explains the “ideal” prince, he states that a prince must have characteristsics that seperates him from other men in his nation. “ The answer is, of course, that it would be best to be both loved and feared. But since the two rarely come together, anyone compelled to choose will find greater security in being feared than in being loved.” ( Machiavelli, 60). Machiavelli states that a prince must have a equal balance of fear and love. Furthermore that these are important traits while making prompt and perilous decisions. While making decisions, the prince should firstly be interetsted in making decisions that increase the security and is the interest of the nation. …show more content…
Furthermore, in order for a prince to remain in power, it is important for him to not be hated ( Machiavelli, 67). George Bush and his administration had to use the false allegations of Iraq’s nuclear program as a reasonable reason for the attack on Iraq. Additionally, on top of that, the 9/11 attacks was an incentive that increased public support of Iraq invasion. Without a reasonable assertion, an invasion in Iraq woud be viewed as unnecceasy and pointless. Therefore, there would not be public support for a war such as. It would also decrease the prince’s ability to remain in power and maintain power. Had former president Bush not use the allegations of Iraq’s nuclear program, he would have been hated by public. Machiavelli states that the Prince should be neither loved nor hated. Therefore, the Prince while making decisions should make sure those decisions won’t result in disapproval from his subjects. That it is better for the prince to be feared than hated.There must be a balance of love and hate according to
Machiavelli thinks it is better for the prince to be feared than loved. For a prince who is loved will be compassionate towards others, mainly his soldiers. When danger is at bay his men will hold him in the highest regard. Should an attack occur they will very quickly turn their backs on him. He may be viewed as weak and untrustworthy, thus easier to overtake. As he explains, “And men are less hesitant about harming someone who makes himself loved than one who makes himself feared because love is held together by a chain of obligation which, since men are a sorry lot, is broken on every occasion in which their own self-interest is concerned: but fear is held together by dread of punishment which will never abandon you” (p.46). If he is loved rather than hated he can never keep an army of soldiers under his command. However, he must not be so feared to the point he is hated to do so he must not take what does not belong to him, and keep his hands off the wives of his subjects.
In The Prince, Machiavelli discusses ways in which a ruler should obtain power and maintain power, emphasizing the concept of gaining power through virtue versus fortune. Virtue, or virtu in the original Italian, is defined as the masculine quality of power, and not necessarily tied to ideas of morality as it is in the English definition.
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.
18). A true prince in Machiavelli’s eyes is someone that the nobles, people, army, and neighboring states will be dependent on. To Machiavelli humans are by nature power hungry and greedy and that as long as there is dependence on the prince whether it is due to heredity, fear, or a variety of other factors, he will remain in 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
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
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).
From Machiavelli’s point of view, he sees that in order to be a better leader, sometimes a leader needs to break his word. To do the best thing for a ruler's well-being and safety occasionally it is necessary to do what is considered unvirtuous in the eyes of the people. Whether that be to publicly execute an enemy, or to raise taxes when having previously promised not to. “A prudent lord, therefore, cannot observe faith, nor should he, when such observance turns against him, and the causes that made him promise have been eliminated.” (Machiavelli, 69)
In Machiavelli, he states, ”I know that everyone will admit that it would be highly praiseworthy in a prince to possess all the above-named qualities that are reputed good, but as they cannot all be possessed or observed, human conditions not permitting of it, it is necessary that he should be prudent enough to avoid the scandal of those vices which would lose him the state, and guard himself if possible against those which will not lose it him, but if not able to, he can indulge them with less scruple. Basically he saying that having many good qualities of what seems an ideal king would not built a structure or a system that is functioning and should make wise decision for what is best for his country. All of this shows Machiavelli views are the same as we are in our society by created a system that is functioning. From this we learn we need to understand what is bad or
"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 in his work informs the prince that even if he does possess certain qualities he shall always appear to his followers as retaining all of these qualities as shown in the following quotation “A prince, therefore, need not necessarily have all the good qualities I mentioned above, but he should certainly appear to have them… He should appear to be compassionate, faithful to his word, kind guileless, and devout… He should not deviate from what is good, if that is possible, but he should know how to do evil, if that is necessary” (Machiavelli 57). Machiavelli highlights that image is extremely crucial for rulers and they must alter the perceptions of their people in regard to him in order to appear in control at all times for the purpose of maintaining and sustaining control. This idea is overturning
One of the three major themes of the Prince would be Hatred. For a prince to remain in power he would have to avoid the hatred of all the people. It wasn’t necessary for a prince to be loved by his people but it’s even better that he is feared by his people, but in fact if a prince is feared by his people it could be the cause of his downfall.
He argues that a prince should appear to be virtuous, but acting completely virtuous can be bad for principality. For instance, he states that “it is necessary for a prince, who wishes to maintain himself, to learn how not to be good, and to use his knowledge and not use it, according to the necessity of the case” and that “he must not mind incurring the scandal of those vices without which it would be difficult to save the state” because “it will be found that some things which seems virtues would lead to one’s ruin” and some that seem to be vices result in greater security and wellbeing (Machiavelli, pg. 54). Machiavelli is advising that a prince should do things that are not considered virtuous if it helps them to maintain their state and brings better results for the state. He believes the prince should do whatever it takes, even immoral things to benefit the domain that he rules which opposes the belief that morality is key to good government. Machiavelli asserts that the purpose of government is not the good of the people, but the stability of the state and the advancement of the prince’s power.
Prowess refers to an individual’s talents, while fortune implies chance or luck. A prince who manages to gain power by relying on his own prowess will succeed at maintaining power because his prowess will have built him a firm foundation for ruling. Princes who succeed due to the sway of fortune or the goodwill of others lack a basis from which to rule and will have difficulty building it quickly enough to prevent power from slipping out of their hands. Thus, although princes who rely on fortune reach their position easily, maintaining that position is extremely difficult. Therefore it is commendable that a prince succeeds on their own prowess, which will help build stronger fundamentals for themselves. He will have the loyalty of his army, which is analogous to the allegiance of the boss’ employees and the respect of leaders of surrounding principalities, which is also comparable to the esteem of other companies. Overall, the more self-reliant this authority figure is, the more he will prove capable of success as he will be better equipped to deal with problems and
What must be understood is that the throne is always in jeopardy and someone is always there to try to knock the prince off his pedestal. This is a prime understanding that a prince must have, and fuels the infamous argument by Machiavelli that it is better to be feared than loved. Machiavelli explains that, for the most part, love is very subjective and eventually will subside unless further concessions are made to appease his subjects. In addition, people only care about their personal conveniences and a prince would have to overextend himself if he were to be loved by all. Fear, however, is not subjective and has a universal effect on all his people. Fear can be attained by sporadic violent acts. One must understand, however, that massive amounts of violence can not be done because it would portray the Prince as tyrant, and might stir up his people to revolt against him. The acts must be calculated, concise, and serve a direct purpose not only to his benefit but to the people’s also. Despite what might be assumed, Machiavelli is really developing a principality based around the people, where the Prince’s actions are merely to save his own head from the chopping block.