All of Machiavelli’s political philosophy revolved around the simple theory that all men are bad. The only reason men ever do good is because it will benefit them personally or because they are afraid of the consequences of not doing good.
Machiavelli viewed the existence of religion as being indispensible to the success of a republic.
Machiavelli goes further to say that “there was never any orderer of extraordinary laws for a people who did not have recourse to God, because otherwise they would not have been accepted.” When the “great men” of society want to impose new laws and orders that won’t be understood or accepted they can use God as a means of giving their new and “extraordinary” laws legitimacy. Men do not so easily believe the
Machiavelli demonstrates that he is convinced that the Bible offers a realistic and even disenchanted view of men who oppose any form of political idealism. According to Machiavelli, the Bible shows men as determined by their passions that forbid them, most of the time, from virtuous behavior. Upon greater scrutiny, the Bible
Niccolo Machiavelli knows the importance of deceit to the ruling class too. Machiavelli says “It is not essential, then, that a Prince should have all the good qualities which I have enumerated above, but it is most essential that he should seem to have them,” (page 46 The Prince) because “men in general judge rather by the eye than the hand.” (page 47 The Prince) To Marx, money allows this type of transformative deception; however, to Machiavelli this ability seems to be more of a character trait. Machiavelli says this can be achieved by appearing to be the “embodiment of mercy, good faith, integrity, humanity, and religion.” (page 47 The Prince) The first four characteristics, he says are the least important when compared to the last. Appearing religious is achievable by being complacent to the Catholic Church and wearing the “cloak of religion”, according to Machiavelli. This “cloak of religion” allows “pious cruelty”, and with his cloak a prince appears justified in his actions, no matter how cruel. (page 59 The Prince). Marx also knows the power of religion to quell the lower class, as the cliché goes, “Religion is the opium of the people.” (Lecture Notes 3/6/13) Religion keeps the poor pacified because they are living for a better afterlife. They are also willing to blindly follow
Machiavelli also presents the idea that the power of a leader depends more on the qualities of the man than on of god. Thats the matter, loved and feared-qualities need there limits the same way as anything else in a social relation. Machiavelli himself stating that a man who makes himself loved than who makes himself feared; the reason is that love is a link to obligation, which men, because they are rotten, and will break any time soon. Machiavelli complicates the nation of good as purely subordinate power, arguing that the excess of “good” can actually do harm. In this case too much clemency can lead to uprisings and civil war. Cruelty what Machiavelli believes in, states that it can serve the greater good. I personally disagree with Machiavelli's text, I think love is stronger than fear. A commander loved by his soldiers will defeat a commander feared by his soldiers in almost all battles, but the feared commander is less subject to arbitrary chance. Its not only love that can destroy a man, so can fear.
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
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
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
Machiavelli’s views were drastically different from other humanists at his time. He strongly promoted a secular society and felt morality was not necessary but stood in the way of a successfully governed state. He stated that people generally tended to work for their own best interests and gave little thought to the well being of the state. He distrusted citizens saying, “In time of adversity,
In his famous works, The Prince and Discourse on Livy, Machiavelli meticulously discusses the importance of religion in the formation and maintaining a political order. Machiavelli regards religion as a political tool used by political elites for political purposes. He argues that the appearance of religion is good while the practice of it is harmful. One of the memorable passage from the Prince that supports Machiavelli’s claim is when he advices the prince to not to be good, and the prince should cultivate the appearance of the religion if he wants to maintain his state. The prince, he writes, “should appear all mercy, all faith, all honesty, all human, all religion” he adds “and nothing is more necessary to have than this last quality” (The Prince, 70). Here, Machiavelli argues, in order for the prince to maintain his state, it is necessary for the prince to go to the source of morality and by this he means religion. Thus, Machiavelli view on religion is nothing but a necessary tool for maintaining a political authority.
Niccolò Di Bernardo Dei Machiavelli was one of the first major philosophers to pull away from the religious side of reason. Breaking away from traditional views and values he became a modern thinker by looking at power through naturalistic and realistic senses. Unlike the views of Hobbes, Machiavelli had a contrasting view on the idea of a sovereign. Where Hobbes would explain a ruler to be fair and never unjust towards his people, Machiavelli would suggest a Prince must be ruthless, but not hated. Machiavelli also believed “A prince ought to have no other aim or thought, nor select anything else for his study, than war and its rules and discipline; for this is the sole art that belongs to him who rule.” The art of war was something Machiavelli believed a prince should always have in mind at all times. He believed that it was through war that one
"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
were gaining, maintaining, and expanding his political power. (Machiavelli,5). His understanding of human nature was a
The importance of the people in governing the state cannot be overstated since they allow the leaders to take control. The importance of fundamental virtues and models are significant in leading since they ensure that the people also have similar qualities and attributes. Since Augustine was a staunch Christian, he does not delve into military action and cruelty in the approaches taken by the leaders. However, Machiavelli believed on the importance of the military and the models that were employed by the leaders. Augustine believes a state draws power from God and Machiavelli from the people. The big question, therefore, is who controls power in the society? Is it God, people, or the
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.
This brings my analysis to the subject of religion and its relationship with political authority. Machiavelli feels religion is a double edged sword where an excess of it in government is harmful but the appearance that it is part of government is not only beneficiary, but necessary. Machiavelli writes that a political leader, " should appear, upon seeing and hearing him, to be all mercy, all faithfulness, all integrity, all religion. And there is nothing more necessary than to seem to possess this last quality." (The Prince Chapter XVIII) Machiavelli's argument centers around his assertion that having all these qualities and employing them at all times is harmful because a leader often has to resort to contradictory measures in order to
Machiavelli says that Moses was successful because he was an “armed prophet” (24). Specifically, Machiavelli says that Moses would not have been able to make the Israelites observe his “constitution” in he was unarmed (24). The Israelites “trembled with fear” in God’s presence, leading Moses to realize that “the fear of God” would keep them from sinning (Exodus 20:18-20). Furthermore, Moses uses political manipulation to deceive the people. For example, when he finds the Israelites to be out of control and a “laughingstock to their enemies,” he tricks the Levites into killing three thousand of their own (Exodus 32:25-28). Machiavelli concisely summarizes the idea that plagues and genocide, rather than rescue from centuries of slavery, bound the Israelites to God with “it is much safer to be feared than loved” (66). This assessment on the ruler’s relation to the people is in the sentence before Machiavelli’s reflection on human nature, displaying the extent to which they are connected. Love is fickle but fear is