Has Political Correctness Gone Too Far?

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 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

Niccolò Machiavelli, established himself as a prominent Renaissance figure when his book The Prince, shared his political philosophies on how to gain and retain power. The “Princely Virtues” were a set of standards that discussed what he considered to be good and bad characteristics of a ruler. Ultimately, Machiavelli explained that morals were not always required to play a part in politics, which in contrast opposed many principles established by his predecessors. Some of the listed characteristics contest his views, meanwhile others disagree. According to Machiavelli’s opinions, always acting moral will ruin a person as the number of immoral people in the world outweigh the good. Machiavelli writes “Other things seem to be vices, yet if put into practice will bring the prince security and well-being,” (186). In this case, if a ruler has the desire to keep his status, he must learn not to be virtuous when it is required. From Machiavelli’s notion, four “positive” attributes a ruler should acquire are cruelty rather than compassion, egoism instead of philanthropy, greediness versus being open-handed, and finally, inflexibility in preference to being easy to deal with. Machiavelli stands by these rules, as he knows a feared leader is more beneficial than a beloved leader. For example, a compassionate, philanthropic leader implies generosity to the people. If the

In The Prince, Machiavelli’s primary focus is on how a prince should act when exercising his political power. Machiavelli argues that a prince should first separate his public and private life. Therefore, a prince must be willing to deceive his people in thinking he is the best suited leader. Although a prince may need to act immoral at times, he must not abuse his power. A prince must only practice acts of manipulation, coercion, and deceit, to protect his power.

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 my attempt to compare the past and the present, I must explain to you the inner thoughts and workings of an ancient icon known as Niccolo Machiavelli on his publication “The Prince”. To do this, I must first start with explaining the brighter side of an ill fate. William Enfield suggested that “The Prince” was a ridicule of Machiavelli’s own perception of political leaders in his time. All in all, declaring that the book was written to “pull off the face of tyranny” and that “men were always fickle, liars, and deceivers” (Enfield, William) as the reporter points out in his article summary as well. Machiavelli’s personality makes this idea a double standard because of the fact that he wrote of breaking the bond of love and even trust if

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.

Niccolò Machiavelli was notorious for his actions and writings as a politician and philosopher, among many other political and humanitarian titles. He lived in a time period during which Italy was rife with political conflict, with city-states battling each other for power. Machiavelli formated specific opinions based on his experiences and what he witnessed of others whilst being in and out of the throes of Italian government. He ended up writing one of his most famous works, “The Prince”, in an attempt to return back to power. Within this work, he analyzes the complexities of governance in a sort of how-to guide style meant for a would-be-ruler. The significance of his analysis comes from his unsentimental and realistic view of human nature

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 "Politically Correct" movement's purpose is to bring historically condescending terms, offensive music and art, and controversial educational content to an end and replace them with more positive and less-offending references. Offensive and demoralizing efforts are wrong, but the censorship and deletion of words and phrases that do not contain the intention to demoralize are taking political correctness too far. Politically correct (or "PC") antics have created a social decline that is growing worse with each generation, specifically regarding areas of art, education, language, and our right to freedom of speech; the degradation they have brought to the American psyche has even led to

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

"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

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

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