Discussion And Controversy In Machiavelli's View Of Power

The political situation that prompted Machiavelli to write The Prince was that Italy wasn’t a unified country yet. It was a bunch of city states.

He placed emphasis on how a prince should do anything to maintain and increase their own powers – it was apparent that he felt the individual needs of a prince in terms of the power and authority was important and that a prince should do whatever he felt necessary to protect the state and as a result it would mean a prince’s position as a ruler was also prodected. [Wheeler, 2011] Machiavelli placed a large amount on the emphasis on the fact that a prince must be seen to be a moral - but he is able act un-morally if it contributes to the good of the state or provides him with more power. He must be loved by the people and he must also be feared in order to maintain his role as a ruler of a state. Machiavelli argued that if a prince cannot be both loved and feared - it is better for him to be feared as more people would be scared to question him and afraid of the consequences that may follow. This results in more power and authority for the prince but at the same time it means that the prince is less accountable. This is a benefit for the prince but no for the people living within the state that Machiavelli is suggesting (Macmillian, 2006)

In the article written by Vincent Barnett, he explains the different reasons that Machiavelli might have written “The Prince”. He also mentions the lasting effects of” The prince” and also mentioned how Machiavelli was ridiculed and judged for his brutally honest writing. Barnett mentioned that Machiavelli had lost his job as the secretary to the chancery in Florence. After losing his job he was arrested, tortured, and became extremely bitter. One of the possible motives for writing “The Prince” was that Machiavelli was trying to get reinstated back into his old job. Machiavelli could have also intended” The Prince” to hit the audience as satirical. Possibly to poke fun at all the failures of the political leaders and to make them look unintelligent.

Machiavelli stressed that no art can deliberately aim at a negative result. As a realist, Machiavelli was concerned with reality and not how things could be. He was significantly influenced by his own failures in public life.

Before Machiavelli wrote The Prince, he was a respected Florentine diplomat. When Machiavelli lost his title, he wrote this work for Lorenzo de’ Medici, the governor of Florence at the time in hopes of obtaining his stature again. Machiavelli’s sole purpose was for Lorenzo de’ Medici to accept his ‘offering’ and give him back his title. Machiavelli says, “I have not sought to adorn my work with long phrases or high-sounding words or any of those superficial attractions and ornaments with which many writers seek to embellish their material, as I desire no honour for my work but such as the novelty and gravity or its subject may justly deserve” (4). Machiavelli clearly states that he in no way was writing this for anyone but Lorenzo nor did he intend on receiving any literary acknowledgment. This proves that The Prince could also have been an informative writing because he was not telling Lorenzo how to run a government or treat his people. However, when he did present the information in his work, he backed up his arguments and had many examples to show that his tactics had been proven to work or would work in future

The Prince had no actual characters, but instead discussed and analyzed the political policies of political leaders, highlighting their faults and strengths. The setting was 1513 Europe. This is the same time when major areas were having power struggles and religious conflict was rampant. His tone is that of the ambitious leader. It conveys the thoughts of one who knows how to gain and maintain power. Though this is true, the thoughts are built upon principalities probably learned by way of many mistakes made by one who will never again be in the position to imply his theorems and strategies. Machiavelli's own ruthless mind probably served as the bases for him knowing the ways of the corrupt. The thesis seems to

It was under these circumstances that he not only witnessed, but also experienced that inspired his writing. The Prince contains many rules, themes, and historical anecdotes one must be aware of to be the Machiavellian prince one of the most important being the idea of relationship between the few vs. many, the oppressor vs. the oppressed, the Greats vs the People, and other relationships within a society. In chapter IX, Machiavelli argues that oppression as a means for gaining power is the many desire of the power-hungry individual. While no one wishes to be oppressed, man is simply incapable of doing unto others as one would want unto himself. In other words, men will always put down those who are weaker and oppress the less powerful. Machiavelli then attempts to deconstruct the conflict posing two key questions to be answered: Why are those who are already in a position of power, the Greats, so inclined to pick on the little guy? And furthermore, if this cannot be rectified, how does a society to the best of its ability protect the disenfranchised People from the Greats?

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

Machiavelli considers society an immoral place. According to Machiavelli as stated in The Discourses on Livy, “for as men are, by nature, more prone to evil than to good”. The Prince is a manual for being a successful ruler in an immoral society. Often times that success is met by committing immoral acts. Machiavelli, an outsider to the inner workings of government gives what he thinks are the critical tools to being a successful ruler in modern society. “Sometimes you have to play hardball” is a saying from today that I relate to his philosophies.

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

In The Morals of the Prince Machiavelli expresses his presumption on how a prince should act. He expresses that a prince should be feared, merciful, stingy, etc. He is right because if a prince is loved and too generous then people will take advantage of him and that will lead to his down fall. A prince must act appropriately to remain in power. Machiavelli gives his best ideas to keep a prince in power.

Nowadays, it is politically impossible to commit to paper a "training guide" for leaders. There are innumerable detractors to any possible stance or strategy a leader might adopt. As a result of this, all "training" must take place behind closed doors, far from the prying eyes and ears of the news media or the public. But this has not always been the case.

"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.

It is fundamentally important to preface the discussion hosted in this essay by addressing ourselves to the most mundane question-why consider Machiavelli in the context of philosophy, least of all, political philosophy? This question dominates any philosophical inquiries of the Machiavelli’s political ideologies. Put differently, do the contributions by Niccolò Machiavelli to the various salient discourses in the Western thought, most notably political theory, meet the requisite standard models of academic philosophy? Machiavelli essentially seems not to consider himself a philosopher. In fact, he overtly disapproved of any philosophical inquiries into his works. In addition, his credentials do not qualify him to be properly admitted within the realm of philosophy (NeDermAN, 2002).