Machiavellian Folly in The Prince Essay

He claims that people have a desire for power, and are so driven to gain it, they risk the relations with others. The crave for power causes many conflicts between people, resulting in those who are involved in getting justice, some who do not gain any justice, and some who are getting unjust consequences. Everyone has developed this state of nature where we fear and crave the same thing, developing many conflicts.

With these natural causes of quarrel, Hobbes concludes that the natural condition of humans is a state of perpetual war of all against all, where no morality exists, and everyone lives in constant fear (p.45). He believes that humans have three motivations for ending this state of war: the fear of death, the desire to have an adequate living and the hope to attain this through one’s labor (p.47). These beliefs become valid because of the use of his examples. One example suggests that people are barbaric to each other. With the absence of international law, strong countries prey on the weakness of weak countries. I believe that his views of moral behavior are very true. Like Hobbes said, people are out for their well-being. If I were to do a favor for someone, I may think I am helping someone out, which I am, but I am probably doing the favor because it is going to make me feel better. It is going to benefit my well being. Hobbes is a famous philosopher whose views were very controversial. But the fact that he lived in a time when the monarchy was the “divine right of kings” (p.42), makes his views valid today. With a different government and new laws, his views appear to be true.

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.

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

Thomas Hobbes was the first philosopher to connect the philosophical commitments to politics. He offers a distinctive definition to what man needs in life which is a successful means to a conclusion. He eloquently defines the social contract of man after defining the intentions of man. This paper will account for why Hobbes felt that man was inherently empowered to preserve life through all means necessary, and how he creates an authorization for an absolute sovereign authority to help keep peace and preserve life. Hobbes first defines the nature of man. Inherently man is evil. He will do whatever is morally permissible to self preservation. This definition helps us understand the argument of why Hobbes was pessimistic of man, and

To begin with, an important theme to discuss is what the modern thinkers believe is the purpose of politics. Machiavelli believes that the purpose of politics is the glory and stability of the state, in which we will refer to as “statecraft”. Hobbes believes in the security of the population to be the purpose of politics. Hobbes wants ensure that the people’s lives are secure and that there is no opportunity of leaving them vulnerable to each other. Locke wants to protect certain natural rights: life, liberty and property. However, when Locke discusses in protecting and engaging people into politics who own property, it excludes the people who do not harbor property; which, at that time, was a majority of the population (234). Hobbes and Machiavelli are both interested in imposing order and avoid chaos. On the other hand,

Hobbes and Machiavelli were both advocates of self-preservation in their philosophies, although Hobbes placed higher priority on the idea of self-preservation more so than Machiavelli. Their views on glory, courage, and honor differ greatly from each other and as a result affect the level of emphasis they place on the value of self-preservation. Hobbes believed that self-preservation was the reason for entering a social contract and that fear of a violent death was the driving force behind leaving the state of nature. Machiavelli argues that the point of Government is for self-preservation.

Machiavelli concentrated more on the way things should be and how to manipulate them for his own personal gain rather than for the betterment of the state. He was well-known for being a political thinker who believed that outcomes justified why things happened. A key aspect of Machiavelli’s concept of the Prince was that “men must either be caressed or annihilated” (Prince, 9). What Machiavelli meant by

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

Aristotle and Hobbes present two fundamentally distinct doctrines about the conception of politics, human affairs, and the nature of man. Specifically, both philosophers express vying interpretations of human nature. Even though Aristotle and Hobbes similarly use their understanding of human nature to conceptualize their politics, they both express differing views about the aims for which they believe human beings act and exist. In a rather preliminary interpretation of their views, it can be said that, for Aristotle, man is inherently social, and thereby is naturally inclined towards the community. Whereas, for Hobbes, man is innately individualistic, and is naturally inclined towards self-interest. The distinction between the Aristotelian and the Hobbesian philosophies about human nature rests in their respective explanations of what means and ends drive human action and existence. In the first half of this paper, I will discuss the ways in which Aristotle’s and Hobbes’ conception of human nature differ from one another. In a discussion of equality, I will compare Aristotle’s view of the flexibility of man’s nature, to Hobbes’ view of the intransigence of man in the state of nature, while also comparing Aristotle’s view of collectivity, to Hobbes’ view of individualism. The second half of my paper will argue that Aristotle’s teleological view of human nature presents a more superior and accurate account of human

“It is much safer to be feared than loved.” This quotation was just a specimen of the harsh and very practical political annotation of the legendary historian, Niccolò Machiavelli – philosopher, patriot, diplomat, advisor and statesman. He was born as the son of a poor lawyer in 1498, but he never let boundaries restrict him. He still received an excellent humanist education from the University of Florence and was soon after appointed as the Second Chancellor of the Republic of Florence.2 His political importance to Florence would soon give him the opportunity to write what is disputed as one of the most significant works in history, The Prince.

A humanist is defined as one who is concerned with the interests and welfare of humans. Niccolo’ Machiavelli can be thought of as a humanist. Although opinions on this differ greatly depending on whom you speak with. Machiavelli’s life consists of so many examples and lessons that he has learned throughout his life. Through my paper, I intend to examine his perception of morality based on his political writings and life experiences.

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'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

Machiavelli has another argument “concerning those who become princes by evil means.”# He believes that cruelty can also be used to benefit the prince but only in modesty. If a prince frequently relies on cruel acts then he will not live in power for long. Proper use of cruelty is only achieved when it is done “out of the need for safety” and when it is done swiftly as to make sure that the act is quickly forgotten, and the people can return to a feeling of safety.# His idea that cruelty should be swift is excellent, this way the citizens will feel more at ease with there prince, because if he were to drag out the atrocities then the people may feel the need to revolt to protect their personal freedoms and civil rights. Many people may think these are evil ideas, but it is completely practical, during Machiavelli’s era (and even today) a prince will always face a moment in this rule that he will have to act in a cruel manner, in no way is this statement cruel it is just a practical way of dealing with a inevitable situation. He also believes that “benefits ought to be given little by little, so that the flavour of them may last longer.”# As much as people may be discusted by this