Has Political Correctness Gone Too Far?

Trying not to overstep the boundaries of the citizens to get kicked out of power or not doing enough that they replace you. With the power gained from leading it is expected that other princes will try to take power away so the only way to prevent this from happening is to make alliances and maintaining a strong military. Later on, in the novel Machiavelli goes on to focus on what qualities a prince should have and how virtu plays a role in making a proper prince. Although a short novel, it is Machiavelli’s most widely known work and is responsible for creating a negative view on rulers/politicians and also making it seem like anything you do, even immoral, is justifiable if the end goal is worth it. Machiavelli writes “He who neglects what is done for what ought to be done, sooner effects his ruin than his preservation” showing that the use of immoral means is justifiable when the end goal is survival and glory. This book follows the ideals of Italian humanism from the author being from Florence, the heart of the renaissance, dedicating the novel to Lorenzo de’ Medici, an example of a man who invested a lot in helping people learn about philosophy and such subjects to become better humanists.

The book The Prince brought a different outlook on political stands but one of the most important one is one about how it is better to be feared. In The Prince Machiavelli would go on to write,” It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both”. This quote can be looked at different ways but he point comes off as be a strong ruler and show no compassion. Machiavelli would go on and even give an example of Cesare Borgia. Borgia was the man who restores Romagna by being

Machiavelli’s ideal prince is one that isn’t afraid to make cruel decisions, because despite the reaction of the people, Machiavelli says "it is better the be feared than loved” (43). Machiavelli states that “Love is held by the tie of obligation, which… is broken on every whisper of private interest; but fear is bound by the apprehension of

When you read the short excerpts from Machiavelli's The Prince from our text I hope that he made you feel angry and defensive. Reading Machiavelli makes me bristle; I want to argue with him. His formulas for political success contradict my most basic religious beliefs, those I have held from childhood, and help me to see why Mennonites have traditionally been so suspicious of politics. And yet I know that his pragmatic approach is the very basis of modern political theory. Because we have, as citizens of the twentieth century, to a large extent followed his advice, I am put on the defensive. I am astonished to see how

In the text The Prince, Niccolò Machiavelli works to create a political system that recognizes failures in human nature and attempts to manipulate them in creating stability. Machiavelli proposes a concept of the Prince and the

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?

Good morning ladies and gentlemen, thank you so much for being present with us today. Me and my fellow group members are on the opposition team and strongly believe that Political Correctness has NOT gone too far and that in fact it is much needed in today 's society.  Political Correctness is defined in the dictionary as “the avoidance, often considered as taken to extremes, of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against.” However, we believe it is much more than that. It is the protection, appreciation, and acknowledgement of different race, ethnicity, age, religion, gender, sexual orientation, culture, and tradition of the

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

In Niccolo Machiavelli’s article to the Italy Prince, he mentioned a lot about the morals that a prince should have. He wrote that as a prince of a country political power is much important than human nature and sometimes prince needs to neglect morals in order to get political power, which I agree with his idea. The difference between a prince and a civilian is that prince has the political power that a normal people could not have, so the prince should use his political power correctly, which can lead the country to become better and united. To use the political power in a right way as Machiavelli said in his article, the prince sometimes needs to be a miser and feared by his people. To do so, the prince can gain the political power. Having

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

At the turn of the 16th century, the Italian Peninsula was marred in brutal conflicts. Nations across Europe, such as France, Spain and the Holy Roman Empire constantly raged wars to keep each other out of the numerous territories around Italy. During this tumultuous time period, a man named Niccolo Machiavelli studied in Florence and witnessed firsthand the issues that rulers often faced while attempting to conquer these Italian cities. His experiences prompted him to write a literary work on his opinion of the ruling class, and his philosophy on how rulers should rule over their subjects. However, his novel The Prince, is an interesting outlier of the time, as parts of it contradict the popular social view of Humanism, which focused on the

"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

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.

Machiavelli goes on in Chapters Fifteen through Twenty Three to discuss his advice to the reader in the ideal behavior and characteristics of a prince. He mentions that doing good would only lead to the ruin of a prince’s kingdom. He claims that a prince should be stingy and cruel as opposed to generous and merciful. He then, of course, adds in examples of successful rulers who were both moral and immoral alike. A prince should break promises more than he keeps them, according to the author. He also suggests that, while behaving in the aforementioned ways, a prince should do his best to avoid being despised by leaving his subjects’ land and women alone and by undertaking great projects to boost his reputation. As suggested at the beginning of Chapter Nineteen, a prince should not be “fickle, frivolous, effeminate, cowardly, [or] irresolute,” (70). ¬¬¬He should also choose wise, as opposed to flattering, advisors.

In the book, The Prince, Niccolo Machiavelli thoroughly explains the lifestyle a proper prince should uphold and the skills/actions he should keep in his arsenal, if the time ever comes. I’ve chosen chapters 15, 16, and 17 to further my claims on whether or not these ideas should be used in today’s government. Chapter 15 mainly focuses on the things for which men, but mainly princes, are praised or blamed for in an everyday society. Chapter 16 touches on how often one should be generous and liberal. Finally, chapter 17, the most controversial chapter of Machiavelli’s book discussed among many, tells the famous line of whether it is better to be loved