Machiavelli The Prince Essay

Niccolo Machiavelli was a unique politician, philosopher, and writer who lived in Florence, Italy during the European Renaissance period of the late 15th and early 16th centuries. He is most famously known for writing his ruthless handbook for rulers, The Prince, during his time in exile in 1513. This contentious piece of literature has been fondly referred to as “the guidebook for tyrants and totalitarians,” according to the documentary, Machiavelli: The Prince by director Jett Rink. However, the document has also been credited with positively paving the way for ethnic and religious toleration, individual rights, and modern democracies all throughout history; and it inevitably set the stage for future governments to come. In this way, it is

The political situation that prompted Machiavelli to write The Prince was that Italy wasn’t a unified country yet. It was a bunch of city states.

Machiavelli believe that fear allows a ruler to be in power, but does not mean they he is hated. Whereas love can lead to hatred because a ruler should not inspire love in others because they will turn against them once they do not fear their

“The state is the highest achievement of man, a progressive and elaborate creation of his free will. The individual, the leader, the people, cooperate in maintaining it.” This idea of state was put forth by Niccolo Machiavelli in The Prince, which was in essence a ruler’s handbook to governing and maintaining his land. Machiavelli conjured his theories for government by basing his ideas in his belief that men, especially men in power, tend to follow the same directions, and therefore by looking at past leaders and their follies we can better determine how to run a state. “Men are always the same and are animated by the same passions that lead them fatally to the same decisions, acts, an results…. That one can foresee the course of

Niccolò Machiavelli was an activist of analyzing power. He believed firmly in his theories and he wanted to persuade everyone else of them as well. To comment on the common relationship that was seen between moral goodness and legitimate authority of those who held power, Machiavelli said that authority and power were essentially coequal.9 He believed that whomever had power obtained the right to command; but goodness does not ensure power. This implied that the only genuine apprehension of the administrative power was the attainment and preservation of powers which indirectly guided the maintenance of the state. That, to him, should have been the objective of all leaders. Machiavelli believed that one should do whatever it took, during the given circumstance, to keep his people in favor of him and to maintain the state. Thus, all leaders should have both a sly fox and ravenous wolf inside of him prepared to release when necessary.10

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

¨Every prince ought to desire to be considered compassionate and not cruel.¨ Notice in this quote from Niccolo Machiavelli's ¨The Prince¨ the word ¨considered¨ is used, rather than something more firm or nothing at all. The point Machiavelli is making is that as a ruler, one must only look like a kind person rather than actually being one. Machiavelli expresses multiple times in his writing that when ruling, using fear is safe and easy to maintain while using love can be messy and full of expectations to uphold. To Machiavelli, the goal is for the ruler to show compassion while still keeping his fear factor, which will help him have an easier time maintaining power. That probably worked when a select few held all the power. In the modern world however, there are more rulers than just Machiavelli’s princes and in most cases it is better to show love rather than to incite fear because the power is now in the hands of the people.

The Renaissance was incorrectly named, as was more so a Reconstruction. Most of Machiavelli’s ideas branch from those of Aristotle. Machiavelli supports the idea that rulers are to say one thing and do another, as well as, that republics should be versatile and adapt with the times. Lastly, Machiavelli states, “One cannot have all the good qualities I have listed and none of the bad ones, (Machiavelli, The Prince: Chapter 15)”. This is a reiteration of Aristotle’s outline of the good.

In The Morals of the Prince Machiavelli expresses his presumption on how a prince should act. He expresses that a prince should be feared, merciful, stingy, etc. He is right because if a prince is loved and too generous then people will take advantage of him and that will lead to his down fall. A prince must act appropriately to remain in power. Machiavelli gives his best ideas to keep a prince in power.

Nowadays, it is politically impossible to commit to paper a "training guide" for leaders. There are innumerable detractors to any possible stance or strategy a leader might adopt. As a result of this, all "training" must take place behind closed doors, far from the prying eyes and ears of the news media or the public. But this has not always been the case.

Niccolo Machiavelli and Karl Marx developed theories concerning wealth and poverty in our society, as well as different types of governments. For instance, Machiavelli supported a capitalist economic system, unlike Marx, who embraced socialism in the society. Machiavelli wrote a book "The Prince" that explained how to be an effective leader. The theme of the book is "the end justifies the means." A person could or should do whatever is necessary to achieve the desired goal. According to Machiavelli, there is no concept of a perfect ruler, but only effective or ineffective leaders. Therefore, he claims that there are no fair fighters, but only losers and winners. Contrary, Marx embraced democracy as good practice for the government. This paper will analyze whether Marx would buy Machiavelli 's thought that states "desired ends justify undesirable means" (Weng 1).

Niccolo Machiavelli's The Prince examines the nature of power and his views of power are still somewhat in existence today. I'll discuss this in this essay, emphasizing the following theses. Machiavelli discusses power over the people, dictatorial power, and power with people, shared power. While it is possible for power with to attain greater prevalence in society, it will not completely eliminate power over. In The Prince, Machiavelli discusses two distinct groups of people, the political elite, including nobles and other princes, and the general public. Today in the United States, the first group, the political elite, includes political leaders, religious leaders, business leaders and the leaders of

In secular democracies, power is necessarily derived from the will of the governed. That power is then entrusted to a leader, who Machiavelli would understand to be a "prince". Inherently, his book, The Prince, has been close at hand for most politicians for centuries, as it provides general, historically proven advice for principalities and republics on how to govern and maintain relations with their most important resource and the very core of their power, which would be the people themselves.

Machiavelli, specifically, had an idea in mind of how a leader should conduct himself and what morals he should value. Straightforwardly, he explained that he considered it unnecessary for a prince to have moral qualities; a prince should instead only “seem” to have them. Thus, it is “useful to seem compassionate, faithful, humane, [and] honest”; however, if one possesses these attributes, it can be destructive (Machiavelli 95). This is since a prince “is often required to act against faith, against charity, against humaneness, and against religion” to maintain his position (Machiavelli 95). Regarding reputation, Machiavelli clarifies whether it is better to be feared or loved by the people. Both are important, but when they are in conflict, “it

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.