Machiavelli Just Society Analysis

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

Through this statement, we can see that Machiavelli’s argument is an extension of his partial view on human nature. This argument is logical because as we can see today, we have punishments for those who commit crimes. People follow laws because they fear the punishment that comes with breaking them. And, that some measure of cruelty is necessary to maintain order. The repercussions may not be as extreme as it was back then, but the general idea still exists. This also ties in with another of Machiavelli’s views in that people are trustworthy when times are good, but become selfish, deceitful, and driven by profit when times are bad.

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

“The end justifies the means” is the axiom that Machiavelli follows
throughout his writings in “The Prince”. According to him human beings
are evil and unreliable thus it is reasonable for the leader to act
cunningly as well as brutally whenever it is necessary. He validates the
use of lies and violence especially for new rulers, who need to attain
power and also, gives the same advices to experienced leaders. Machiavelli
bases his theory of amoral politics on predominantly negative view he holds
on the nature of human beings. He suggests that since all humans are
egoistical and erratic, a prince needs to be cruel and hypocritical in
order to rule them. Leader cannot trust a citizen; since he is imperfect
and cannot be trusted or be seen as completely loyal. Machiavelli does not
states that being an amoral politician is the best way of life but he says
that at this certain point in history, and by considering past experiences, 
this is how it is in politics. 
In one of the chapters of “The Prince”, Machiavelli questions whether a
leader should prefer to be loved or to be feared and he personally thinks
that a good prince should strive for both but in case he has to make a
decision, to be feared needs to be prioritized as “[fear] is maintained by
a dread of punishment which will never desert

"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

Nevertheless, The Prince’s view of human nature is quite modern. In his whole book, Machiavelli makes a comparison between human nature and the animal. Although, to compare human being was an ancient tradition but these characteristics elucidate the hard working and cunning nature of human being. But at the same time, Machiavelli sets the ground for controlling this prudent animal that is the human being. In short, throughout his book, Machiavelli depicts evil aspects of human beings and denies humanistic aspects. The basic purpose of these claims is to favor and justify all acts of the prince.

He sees no purpose in restraining and controlling oneself for the society because the society will not prosper if the ruler does not. Ruthlessness, maliciousness, and deviousness are all hailed as being acceptable, in fact encouraged, as means of securing position of power. Through his prioritizing, Machiavelli does not seem to be as concerned with the society and the individual as the previous philosophers in history have been. Rather, he sees power as the one and only goal in life, regardless of the individual or the state. Again, though, he is a reflection of his times. The men of the Renaissance era wanted many things--money, power, enjoyment in life--regardless of the moral cost. Others would argue that these superfluities either meant nothing or would not occur without restraining the desires of both ones self and ones state. One needs balance of everything in order to reach the ideals of perfection, but Machiavelli would argue that perfection is not real and so is not worth striving for. Instead, one must live for ones self. He makes the generalization of men that:

A just society, it is a place where every citizen is equal, every citizen has common rights, duties and where the government works for the welfare of the society without any selfish wants. Every citizen is individually responsible to have a just society. I believe to have a just society there should be rights and duties for everyone living in the society. At an individual level I believe there should be equality in the state. According to the constitution, it is our fundamental right that we would be treated equally, but the prevailing quota system in our society is totally contradictive to this statement.

Machiavelli was not concerned with whether a person was inherently good or bad, nor was he concerned with whether the elites exploited the weak. He was only concerned with whether an individual was competent or incompetent. A cruel dictator who kept his state in check would be look upon more favorable than a weak, but good-mannered politician who is unable to secure any influence. “Cesare Borgia was considered cruel; yet his cruelty restored Romagna, uniting it in peace and loyalty. If this result is considered good, than he must be judged must kinder than the Florentines…” (Machiavelli, p. 59) In Machiavelli’s eyes, the end justifies the means which is the central underlying message in his work, “The Prince.” Machiavelli was one of the first to suggest the realism of politics and that practical methods were superior to moral actions. At the time, many people would look to religion and to the Church for guidance in state affairs. The Church’s power was great at the time because many European rulers were Catholic and would often seek to the Church for guidance or mediation. In fact, Machiavelli disliked the immense power the Church had and advocated for secularism in politics. Machiavelli believes that religion was holding people back from effectively governing states and that they needed to use their own intuition instead of their own religion and idealism. “I deem it best to stick to

Machiavelli’s concept of “Virtu” virtue for politicians involves wisdom, strategy, strength, bravery and when necessary ruthlessness. For being a successful ruler one needs to be virtuous. However, “a ruler ought not to mind the disgrace of being cruel, if he keeps his subjects peaceful and law abiding, for it is more compassionate to impose harsh punishments on a few than out of compassion, to allow disorder to spread, which leads to murders or looting” (Machiavelli, 1994. Pg51). According to Machiavelli every ruler wants to be loved but somehow he

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

He viewed the masses as pliable, but difficult to control over time. In Chapter VI, he wrote, “the nature of the people is variable, and whilst it is easy to persuade them, it is difficult to fix them in that persuasion,” A sign of his confidence in the need of dealing with one's lead in order to be prepared to adjust to evolving conditions. As he wrote in Chapter X with respect to the pliability of the general population and of the need to foresee and address their feelings of fear and desire. “If the people have property outside the city, and see it burnt, they will not remain patient, and the long siege and self-interest will make them forget their prince; to this I answer that a powerful and courageous prince will overcome all such difficulties by giving at one time hope to his subjects that the evil will not be for long, at another time fear of the cruelty of the enemy, then preserving himself adroitly from those subjects who seem to him to be too bold.” An additional proof of Machiavelli's negative state of mind towards human nature is shown in in Chapter XXIII, titled “How Flatterers Should be Avoided.” As he does all through his treatise, Machiavelli stresses the qualities that ought to portray the viable ruler, or sovereign, and cautions against the pitfalls connected with docile subordinates. “It is that of flatterers,

1.According to Machiavelli’s views on human nature he viewed humans as fundamentally evil. Describing them as wicked, aggressive, self-interested, stupid and so on. He pays little attention to the common people. As his views them as complacent followers who will not stand in one's way to power as long as they are kept happy. In Machiavelli’s views “ it must be noted that men must either be caressed or else destroyed, because they will revenge themselves for small injuries…”(Machiavelli 12). Tying back into Machiavelli’s view on humans being self-interested stating that unless appeased people will retaliate against everything even the smallest of injustices.

In essence, Machiavelli’s ideal principality sustains a genuine sense of morality behind the violence that “must be subjected in order to maintain stability.” Looking at his plans subjectively,