Galileo Of Politics: Niccolo Machiavelli's The Prince

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

During the Italian Renaissance and particular in the Florentine Republic, the Roman Catholic Church had a strong influence on the state and regarded the relationship between moral good governance and legitimate authority highly. In contrast during this period Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli (1469-1527) an official in the Florentine Republic from 1498 to 1512, consisted that there is no moral basis on which to judge the difference between legitimate and illegitimate uses of power. When the Medici was out of power Machiavelli was involved in diplomatic and military affairs. Arrested and tortured in 1513, accused of conspiracy against Medici family, an important historian, politician, diplomat, philosopher, humanist, and writer; but best known today as the founder of modern political science and political ethics. Declared by Pope Leo Strauss ‘a teacher of evil’ (Leo Strauss) when writing ‘The Prince’(1513, published 1532) his most (in)famous book, placed on the Papal Index of banned books in 1559.

When reading Machiavelli's writing, one must quickly both differentiate and depersonalize the true feelings of Machiavelli, the person, as opposed to Machiavelli writing the book. Machiavelli's work is considered the finest treatise of political science, along with the academic birth of 'realism.' Ends do justify means in Machiavelli's text; however, one must understand that Machiavelli generally only supported violence for a greater purpose, and never more than necessary to retain stability. This was not Machiavelli's opinion alone but was the reality of Italian politics during the period.

The writings of Nicolo Machiavelli are the single most important example of this new humanist thought. Drawing from ancient Roman writers, Machiavelli developed a worldly concept of politics, and was one of the first in the modern period to discuss the virtues of republican government and a system of checks and balances. He is perhaps most famous for his rejection of Christian idealism in politics. Princes and other leaders, he argued, must view human affairs must as they really are, not as we hope ideally they should be. The rules of worldly power (best understood by the

The makeup of a functioning society is one that lies in the grey area of human existence. Not every aspect of human nature is ready to be sorted into one or the other. Which is why when examining society, it is important to have both a realistic as well as an idealistic view. Philosophers Niccolò Machiavelli and Socrates lived in a time of uncertainty, political fragmentation, and violence and their attitude on how to deal with such issues were contrasting. Machiavelli chooses to focus on creating a political power that is long lasting while Socrates chooses to investigate more into the unknown and promote transparency by challenging the authority that is already in power. As indicated by the works The Apology and Crito, Socrates has an idealistic approach towards ethics and politics. On the opposite hand, in the work The Prince, philosopher Niccolò Machiavelli advocates a realistic point of view in creating a political power that is strong and long-lasting. Socrates would not be supportive of Machiavelli’s The Prince as it advocates for everything that Socrates identifies as unstable characteristics for a government. In short, the political system of which Machiavelli is advocating for is the sole one that Socrates is trying to dismantle.

In his landmark political treatise The Prince, Italian diplomat Niccolo Machiavelli put forth a framework for ruling a people that is at once derided and deferred to even today. The highly controversial ideology calls for a firm, even ruthless form of leadership that commands respect through any means necessary. Machiavelli allows even for the use of fear, violence and evil where appropriate. But it is in defining where these tactics are appropriate that we enter a discussion about the American political process. In one respect, our electoral cycle differentiates the United States significantly from the feudal hierarchy of 16th Century Italy. In another respect though, a reflection on the wholesale corruption of the former Bush administration may suggest otherwise. Today, it may be argued that many conservative and Republican political figures closely resemble Machiavelli in their espoused extremism but in fact, differ from the philosopher in their overall intentions. Where Machiavelli underscored his framework with an understanding that rulership is for the greater good, regardless of the measures employed to maintain this, self-interest and greed are a common presence in today's political process.

“A New Argument for Morality: Machiavelli and the Ancients” by Rafael Major argues that Machiavelli relied on the rhetorical strategy of classical authors and Christian texts to formulate his moral philosophy. This usage demonstrated that The Prince was not as original or realistic as Machiavelli believed. Rafael Major is a lecturer at the University of North Texas with a focus on politics. The intended

Niccolò Machiavelli was an activist of analyzing power. He believed firmly in his theories and he wanted to persuade everyone else of them as well. To comment on the common relationship that was seen between moral goodness and legitimate authority of those who held power, Machiavelli said that authority and power were essentially coequal.9 He believed that whomever had power obtained the right to command; but goodness does not ensure power. This implied that the only genuine apprehension of the administrative power was the attainment and preservation of powers which indirectly guided the maintenance of the state. That, to him, should have been the objective of all leaders. Machiavelli believed that one should do whatever it took, during the given circumstance, to keep his people in favor of him and to maintain the state. Thus, all leaders should have both a sly fox and ravenous wolf inside of him prepared to release when necessary.10

It is essential prior to judgement on whether Machiavelli is a political amoralist or not to take into account The Discourses and the essence of their meaning. The Prince alone I grant can be mistaken for a how-to-be-a tyrant handbook with it’s absolute theories and some what lack of civility, where “the end justifies the means';. But it’s intention is assuming the political leader is already of moral standing and possess such qualities of integrity and virtue to be expected of one in the position of leadership. “Everybody sees what you appear to be,few feel what you are,and those few will not dare to oppose themselves to the many,who have the majesty of the state to defend them;and in the actions of men,and especially of princes,from which there is no appeal, the end justifies the means'; “Thus it is well to seem merciful,faithful humane,sincere,religious and also to be so.'; Effectively what seems as ruling with an iron fist is best expressed in terms of need. The 16th Century political unrest Machiavelli is influenced by would best be unified by such absolute power due to it’s degradation and lack of structure. So therefore it would not be seen as immoral with respect to it’s time. And looking at it from a wider more advanced perspective although the technique may appear rigid if it creates the desired unification

While some other great political thinkers sat around and dreamed about their perfect little utopias in the clouds, notably Socrates and Plato, Machiavelli was analyzing the most powerful men of his day. He observed and recorded how men flocked the sheep to exactly where they were wanted by their shepherd. He watched as the wolves preyed on the sheep and noticed that there was no philosopher king around to prevent it. He accepted that we as humans are corrupt and that we can’t all be Marcus Aurelius, king of

Machiavelli’s views were drastically different from other humanists at his time. He strongly promoted a secular society and felt morality was not necessary but stood in the way of a successfully governed state. He stated that people generally tended to work for their own best interests and gave little thought to the well being of the state. He distrusted citizens saying, “In time of adversity,

Anyone who is ruthless is considered 'Machiavellian' nowadays. But some of Machiavelli's other books, The Discourses, The History of Florence, and some of his personal correspondences to friends and family indicate that Machiavelli held a different set of ideals.

This brings my analysis to the subject of religion and its relationship with political authority. Machiavelli feels religion is a double edged sword where an excess of it in government is harmful but the appearance that it is part of government is not only beneficiary, but necessary. Machiavelli writes that a political leader, "…should appear, upon seeing and hearing him, to be all mercy, all faithfulness, all integrity, all religion. And there is nothing more necessary than to seem to possess this last quality." (The Prince Chapter XVIII) Machiavelli's argument centers around his assertion that having all these qualities and employing them at all times is harmful because a leader often has to resort to contradictory measures in order to

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.

Rather, he would see both groups, and religion in general, as useful only as a means to an end. Appearing to be part of an organization such as religion can help a leader gain respect and appeal to a larger demographic. But behind closed doors, a leader’s ability to dissociate from the public’s perception of them and solely pursue political gain gives them an edge. Moreover, while More acknowledges that total trust is unrealistic through the meaning of the word “utopia,” Machiavelli extends this idea, characterizing betrayal as an irremovable part of mankind. In regards to religion, he says that “because [men] are wicked, and they would not observe faith for you, you too do not have to observe it for them” (Machiavelli 92).