Is Machiavelli's Argument Of Ill-Doers?

Machiavelli led us to a question that was continuously in disagreement. That question was “Is it better to be loved than feared, or vice versa” (p.392)? Machiavelli thought that one is to be loved & feared. Nevertheless, at the same time it’s tremendously hard to achieve being both loved & feared. Machiavelli believed that if one had to do without one of them that it would be a safer to be feared than to be loved. For example if a ruler was more loved than feared then if you served their men’s interest & were also devoted to them they would promise you their blood, possessions, lives, & children until you needed help because once you needed help you were on our own. If you’re more feared than loved then when you’re in trouble your

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

Machiavelli says that if someone is loved then they are simply at the mercy of the people you lead and if they are feared then they have no choice but to stay loyal. If a CEO was loved in the situation of having insufficient funds for basic needs then he wouldn't be able to pay his workers. When this happens, the workers will most likely stop loving and respecting their CEO which would cause chaos and eventually a collapse in the company. If this CEO was feared, the workers do not have a choice, they will stay in their place. They do not want to lose their jobs and that could happen if they fall out of line during this rough time. The fear doesn’t give people a choice; they either stay loyal or are removed from the group. I accepted all of Machiavelli’s ideals until the last point he brought up. He envisions that a prince should be seem to have five good qualities: compassion, honor, integrity, humanity and religion. He does not think that they need to have these qualities, just appear to have them. I dissagree with his claim and believe that anyone that is in power should strive to actually possess these admirable qualities, not just fake them. Before actually reading this essay, I did not see why anyone would still use this book to explore options

Nicolò Machiavelli was most famous for writing the essay The Prince during the 1500’s, which emphasized the need for stability, rather than fairness. The text was written as a guide to keeping power above all else. As Machiavelli has proved to be both repellent and enticing, the message of his essay has often been misinterpreted. The most common misreading is to suggest that Machiavelli advocates the idea that ‘being evil for the sake of being evil is acceptable’. However, as John Roe has noted, ‘Machiavelli at no point advocates the practice of evil as acceptable in itself – despite what his many detractors then and now have said; he concedes, rather, that evil sometimes has to be used’ (2). It is in this respect that characters such as Hamlet can be viewed as Machiavellian but not truly Machiavellian. Although he is not overtly evil, Hamlet is faced with the task of killing a legitimately elected monarch in order to avenge his father, with no concrete evidence, and only the word of the

Machiavelli suggests that the most supreme approach to change the degenerate individual into a decent individual is through the good law, although even the best law is pointless. Machiavelli characterizes man as being self-serving and not willing to act in the best interest of the state, “and when the prince is in danger they turn against him”. Machiavelli strengthens the prince’s need to be feared by stating, “Men worry less about doing an injury to one who makes himself loved than to one who makes himself feared”. To acquire honour, Machiavelli suggests that a prince must be readily willing to deceive the citizens. These treacherous measures would bring the prince honour and trust among the citizen, suggesting that man’s nature is changeless, which is exemplified in Shakespeare’s ‘Julius Caesar’ through the character of Mark Antony.

By killing Fanucci he becomes feared but also inspires love because he rid the neighborhood of a sort of tyrant. Machiavelli sees little value in love or the loyalty it might incur from his people. Instead, he feels that it is vital for rulers to make people aware of his ultimate power. When Machiavelli states, “a wise prince should establish himself on that which is his own control and not that

Thus, Machiavelli claimed that when one cannot be both feared and loved, one shall rather be feared than loved. According to the man himself, Machiavelli asserted in The Prince that “...one should wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, it is much safer to be feared than loved.” Machiavelli believed that a leader should be feared rather than loved, simply because being feared is safer. A leader who is feared will discern that his subjects are intimidated, which allows the leader to easily maintain control within his governed state. Additionally, a leader who is despised, feared, and terrified by his subjects eliminates the prospects of revolts, rebellions, or traitors. Therefore, being feared is the safer option, as it allows the leader to prosper under the understanding that all his subjects are loyal to him, and him only. With this concept, Machiavelli influenced the start of political science by acknowledging the qualities of a true

Machiavelli is conveying humans are governed by the law of their own self-interest. They will want wants best for them and desire that. Therefore if the leader is feared he will be able to control the people’s needs in order to avoid corrupt laws. Ultimately it is better for a prince to be feared than loved, because love is fickle, while fear is constant.

Machiavelli has a political thinker perspective view. He was a philosopher that behaves badly, being evil to see as well as power it was. “It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both.” He believed on these because of the way he saw the world, this quote was developed by his political, military and governance services. He believed that love was stronger than fear. But in the way he structured that quote is that love ends, no matter what it ends, it can be strong but at last you have anything. We can fall easily in love, we can love easily, love comes and goes, you can choose to whom you love, but fear is totally the opposite, fear is much more predictable, is even stronger, you can have eternal fear for someone or something as

103). Machiavelli points out that the prince’s decisions and actions should not be quick, nor should he allow himself to express fear. Controlling his emotions to an even temperament with, “prudence and humanity” (pg. 103) this would keep the appearance of him being overconfident avoiding the people’s distrust in him. True friendships come without a purchase price, They gift of friendship is earned whereas being feared, there is no respect or friendship. However, being loved Machiavelli prescribes that this is, “Preserved by a link of obligation” (pg. 103). Knowing limits and boundaries is also a must; going after another person’s property or processions will not win you favor among your peers. This act of restraint ties into his philosophy of, “Being feared or loved” where his concluding thought is, “He must endeavor only to avoid hatred”

Machiavelli begins his argument, by justifying an authoritarian governing system by the means of hereditary rule. He believes that people always comply with The Princes rule because they act on love. Machiavelli explains this when he states that, “The hereditary prince has less cause and less necessity to offend, hence it happens that he will be more loved” (The prince, 3). For

Perhaps what makes Machiavelli so famous, was his work “on Principalities” [1512], or as it is now titled, The Prince. The well-known book announced a dramatic shift in a new way of thinking in terms of political power. The political doctrine laid out moral and religious systems of thought. Machiavelli is also know for stating his thoughts on the truth of politics, how the world “ought” to be rather than how it “is”. Machiavelli being a realist adopted the that one should fear their leader instead of love him, as subjects love at their pleasure while they fear at the pleasure of the leader in power. He also insisted on violence and cruelty to keep the order in a state, as it creates fear in terms of the leader however it helps avoid

In Machiavelli’s “The Prince” dating back to the renaissance is one of the most controversial pieces of writing still studied to this day. Machiavelli believes that we are born either powerful or born as nobody’s or as “private citizens” as he describes it (Machiavelli, The Prince, Chapters 12-18). Within this piece Machiavelli outlines and provides insight to human behavior as a way of set guidelines for future princes to abide by so that they can establish a successful reign while in power. In return it should help create a peaceful and secure kingdom for themselves and their followers. He believed that the end always justified the means and that there were only two ways a person could come to power, prowess and fortune. However virtue was a big characteristic as well, on account of it showed strength in character and portrayed

But, not surprisingly, Machiavelli is against this imaginary ruler. Although it would be marvelous if a ruler have all these good qualities, he believes that a ruler who has all of these good characteristics cannot exist in practice [Selected Political Writings, The Prince ch. 15, p.48]. For him this image is suitable only for an ideal world. Unlike Plato, Machiavelli highlights that in practical reality, for a ruler, who wants to hold on to power, it is necessary to learn how not to be good. Misery, cruelty, duplicity, irreligion or untrustworthiness are evil qualities, for

Niccolo Machiavelli’s thought on virtue has been analyzed in many ways, but no one has ever got the right answer to what Machiavelli himself meant. According to Machiavelli virtue is defined as generosity and compassion that are praised by others. Few have analyzed on the writings of Machiavelli’s concept; this assignment is hard to understand because its not clear what Machiavelli means. Virtue has many meanings, but one of the main points in philosophy is that virtue is a part of good life. Politically sometimes virtue can be used as skill and strength either as force or potential. Virtue is mostly linked with understanding and controlling the world. In this essay I will be discussing what Machiavelli thinks that a prince should do and what they shouldn’t do in order to become a successful ruler. Machiavelli chose harsh over generous and hard over soft. Although not every