Machiavelli And Religion Essay

“The practice of violence, like all action, changes the world, but the most probable change is to a more violent world” (Arendt pg 80). Violence is contagious, like a disease, which will destroy nations and our morals as human beings. Each individual has his or her own definition of violence and when it is acceptable or ethical to use it. Martin Luther King Jr., Walter Benjamin, and Hannah Arendt are among the many that wrote about the different facets of violence, in what cases it is ethical, the role we as individuals play in this violent society and the political aspects behind our violence.

How should leaders approach the ideas of peace and war? This question has fascinated those in positions of power for ages. Ancient Chinese philosopher Lao-Tzu believes that war should only take place in the direst of situations and should not be considered virtuous (61; sec. 31). On the contrary, Niccolo Machiavelli, a fifteenth-century Italian philosopher, states, “A prince, therefore, must not have any other object nor any other thought, nor must he take anything as his profession but war…” (86). While Lao-Tzu formulates an ideal approach to war and Machiavelli a practical one, neither one of their strategies would be effective in the real world; leaders must conduct their military with a balance of serenity and brutality.

Within regard to war though, one’s army could never be considered too cruel, by keeping an army disciplined and united cruelty was required even that seen as inhumane(Machiavelli,trans; W. K. Marriott). Back to the peoples views no matter the strength of the loving bond they might of held for their prince, people simply will not follow orders if it means sacrificing their own prosperity. The threat of punishment demands orders to be followed, guaranteeing subjects compliance to the prince. This “the time isn't worth the crime” solution remains true in modern society. There are rules set up in every society that are meant to hinder deviance and maintain stability in the community. Most people today follow laws to fulfill their feelings of moral obligation or simply because they have respect for the system they live under. Whereas many others decide to follow laws in fear of the sanction or punishment they might face for breaking the law(Radelet,Lacock). This is seen typically as an argument that those in favor of capital punishment make in the United states. It is specifically argued that the use of the death penalty acts as a deterrent in contemporary society. Secondly if considering capital punishment in contemporary society, it also acts to discourage the general population from going forth committing capital crimes(Radelet,Lacock). Although truly there is no scientific evidence to back up this statement, it would suffice as an explanation to Machiavelli

Mankind has long accepted violence as a fair means to achieve equality. In human history, the most thorough changes are brought in by the most radical overthrow of the old structure, knocking down the walls that separated the silent majority from the minority, sweeping aside the commands of the oppressors, tearing down the chains of oppression that once trapped them away from their inherent rights of freedom, in an effort to achieve justice for themselves and their countries. Revolutions in particular illustrated that the groups that desire reform but are willing to compromise for stability, take longer to implement changes, while the groups that are more devoted to revolutionary change and are often unafraid to use violence, could implement

Mahatma Gandhi, a renowned political and spiritual leader, once said that, “I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary, the evil it does is permanent.” Presume you see two men in a heated argument and one of them is about to attack the other, you take a rock and throw it at him and knock him out. On one hand it is a good thing that you prevented the attack but on the other hand you used violence yourself, and there is no doubt that you would not hesitate to use it again. The good that came from the violence that you used lasted for a short time, but the punishment that you get for doing this lasts for a long time. Imperialism of rivalries and nationalism were two of the main reasons that most

assuming in this case that there is a provocation, that there is some sort of “reason” for retaliation, yet Machiavelli takes more of a proactive stance on violence. Machiavelli informs his prince of leaders who have benefitted in killing their enemies before they have had a chance to do him harm. He mentions the duke, Alexander, who, “killed as many [dispossessed rulers] as he could lay hands on” (Machiavelli, Chapter 7, Page 28), and Agathocles the Sicilian who ruled his people so ruthlessly- killing the richest and

The clash of reasonable arguments and brute strength might be a relevant matter in the modern society. Especially if you don’t know exactly how to cope with violent behaviour. Is violence bad or is it just an expression of strength and being a masculine person?

Despite the cruel intentions of the overruling empathic less people who use dictatorship to control and to manipulate the minds of people around themselves to achieve what they want, using violence to get a point across the minds of people just makes them as bad as the ones who do this.Oppression is tool used by many, it destroys and creates limitations for many people. To control many citizens dictators use violence they take away every right or fun that was ever left of the country.They make them fear them lower their education so they wouldn't know about the stuff they are doing.They strip every little spot of freedom someone has.Then they stomp on it til it disappears.But you can't fight fire with fire it just creates more fire.Anyone who

History has been, and continues to be, revolved around the concept of violence. Violence is an unescapable subject that people, leaders, and countries are faced with whenever any conflict occurs. Everyone has their own opinion on whether or not violence is the solution to every problem. Specifically looking at Mohandas Gandhi’s Satyagraha, Frantz Fanon’s chapter titled “Concerning Violence” from his novel The Wretched of the Earth, and Benito Mussolini’s “The Doctrine of Fascism”, we gain a clear understanding whether or not they supported the use of violence and what their objectives were within their time period. Although Gandhi, Fanon, and Mussolini acknowledge violence as a widely used force to deal with political, social, and economic

Niccolio Machiavelli (Born May 3rd, 1469 – 1527 Florence, Italy.) His writings have been the source of dispute amongst scholars due to the ambiguity of his analogy of the ‘Nature of Politics'; and the implication of morality. The Prince, has been criticised due to it’s seemingly amoral political suggestiveness, however after further scrutiny of other works such as The Discourses, one can argue that it was Machiavelli’s intention to infact imply a positive political morality. Therefore the question needs to be posed. Is Machiavelli a political amoralist? To successfully answer this it is essential to analyse his version of political structure to establish a possible bias. It would also be beneficial

Niccolo Machiavelli stressed that “one ought to be both feared and loved, but as it is difficult for the two to go together, it is much safer to be feared than loved…for love is held by a chain of obligation which, men being selfish, is broken whenever it serves their purpose; but fear is maintained by a dread of punishment which never fails.” He felt that a true leader must be cunning and deceptive, winning the hearts of his people through power and influence. If he could not be liked, he could at least get by knowing he has intimidated these below him into submission. However rash or cruel this may seem, Machiavelli’s argument is not one to be countered easily.

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

Machiavelli desired and had a talent for government work ever since childhood. His intelligence and passionate political interests were powerful reasons for the attention from Florentine politicians. For this reason, he was once known as “Machia,” a pun on

However, that said, some of his ideas continue to attract philosophical engagements even by the so-called first rank philosophers. This qualifies the incorporation of some of his ideologies into any comprehensive philosophical survey. This paper therefore zeros in on his political ideals that have culminated into what is known as Machiavelli’s political philosophy of ‘Machiavellism’ (Meinecke, 1965). The paper seeks to explore his political ideologies in general. Further, the paper seeks to establish based on any real evidence whether Machiavelli is indeed a ‘break’ in the political philosophy or otherwise. In keeping with the latter

Niccolò Machiavelli thoroughly discusses the importance of religion in the formation and maintenance of political authority in his famous works, The Prince and The Discourses. In his writing on religion, he states that religion is beneficiary in the formation of political authority and political leaders must support and endorse religion in order to maintain power. However, Machiavelli also critiques corrupt religious institutions that become involved in politics and in turn, cause corruption in the citizenry and divisions among the state. In the following essay, I will examine Machiavelli's analysis of religion and discuss the relationship between religion and politics in Machiavelli's thought.