Machiavelli's The Prince

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

He believed that a political leader may be required to commit acts that would be wrong if done in private. In the “Problem of Dirty hands” by Michael Walzer, he echoed the same sentiment however he went further to say that politicians must do wrong in order to do right and even if the wrong cannot be justified it is necessary to govern. In Walzer’s view as long as you publicly admit to your guilt you fulfill your moral and political demands. To the contrary, in the “Prince” for Nicolo Machiavelli, you don’t need to acknowledge your guilt as long as you get the result you want “the ends justify the means” (The Prince). Both Machiavelli and Walzer’s view of Political ethics is the paradigm for political actions in today’s democratic world. Politicians will do and say anything to get elected whether it’s moral or

“A New Argument for Morality: Machiavelli and the Ancients” by Rafael Major argues that Machiavelli relied on the rhetorical strategy of classical authors and Christian texts to formulate his moral philosophy. This usage demonstrated that The Prince was not as original or realistic as Machiavelli believed. Rafael Major is a lecturer at the University of North Texas with a focus on politics. The intended

Niccolò Machiavelli’s The Prince was met with much criticism after its publication over five hundred years ago. It was written to guide leaders for a republican form of government. The latter chapters describe the qualities of the ideal leader, or prince, particularly those concerning morals and perception by the public. Machiavelli prioritizes the upholding and maintaining of the government and sacrifices traditional morals. Because of his theory of the qualities a prince should exhibit, he was condemned as evil by many. Machiavelli’s theory that a prince should be stingy, feared, and deceitful is fitting for a modern republican government.

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

Machiavelli considers society an immoral place. According to Machiavelli as stated in The Discourses on Livy, “for as men are, by nature, more prone to evil than to good”. The Prince is a manual for being a successful ruler in an immoral society. Often times that success is met by committing immoral acts. Machiavelli, an outsider to the inner workings of government gives what he thinks are the critical tools to being a successful ruler in modern society. “Sometimes you have to play hardball” is a saying from today that I relate to his philosophies.

Plato has also mentions how the soul is made up of three important parts. The first one is the capacity for reasoning, according to Plato the “rational” part of the soul is designed to help an individual to seek to make rational decisions, which is an important element found in guardians. The second element is “courage” which is what is presented when one acts in the best interest of the state to protect the state. The third element is “temperance” which is “unlike courage and wisdom,” it has the ability to “produce harmony of the weaker and the strong and the middle class,” (pg.69) which is discovered in the producers of the social class because they have the ability to be the middle ground and maintain a sustained lifestyle by producing

In my opinion I think that Machiavelli wrote this book as a practical guide for future rulers, to use also in the beginning he offers the prince the book as a gift and a guide, he talks about not having anything that he deems worthy enough for the prince but he considers his knowledge to be pretty worthy. For example in chapter III Machiavelli advise the prince on what he should do if he were to gain power of a new state, for example he advises the prince to reside into the new state that way if there is any conflict he is present to solve. He also advises the prince on establishing colonies in new states because this way it is less expensive than maintaining a military in the new state. In the book he writes “One does not spend much on colonies,and

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

When examining Machiavelli political ideals, it is hard to look at it without saying this is cruel and not ideal in any sense. Machiavelli is a prime example for a strong leader that pursues justice through unification and has shown to be very open-minded. Justice doesn’t just come through cruelty and strength, it also requires intelligence with careful studies. As exhibited in the prior quote, he takes in historical mistakes and success to shape his ideal. To have a culture with justice, Machiavelli pushes that “It is necessary for a prince who wish to maintain his position to learn how not to be good, and to use this knowledge or not to use it accordingly” (224). It is quite evident that Machiavelli is willing to use the full extent of his power without fear. Through his willingness and open-mindedness, he examines both side, good and the bad, for the benefit of his country. He believes only those that can utilize both knowledge is fit for the position of being a prince. When he says knowledge, it goes deep into the studies of history and past experiences. It is shown time and time again throughout his

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 this

Niccolo Machiavelli was the first to clearly decipher politics from ethics by studying politics in such depth and thought. He created the basis of what politics should be and how they are runned for today. His book The Prince is primarily a handbook for all rulers to follow to be the most successful in their reign. His book is considered political realism which means he speaks about only the truth of politics, so it can be used for the practice of governing. Machiavelli’s book is the handbook for obtaining and maintaining power even for today’s modern politics.

Niccolo Machiavelli lived during the Renaissance period and is considered to be one of the leading writers of this era. Machiavelli was an Italian philosopher, historian, diplomat and humanist, based in Florence and is considered to be the patron of contemporary political science, including political moral code. His most famous work was “The Prince” which was printed in 1532, five years after his death. The main subject of this book is the philosophy of administration (carried out by the ruling class ‘’princes’’) and how, one should make use of any means including immoral, to retain complete power. The book was criticized substantially since it seemed that the author was encouraging immoral behavior in politics. I disagree with the line “Politics has no relation to morals” by Niccolo Machiavelli because this statement is a misquotation, it’s considered as satire by Enlightenment thinkers, politicians are expected to be honest by the people, although it is true that politicians employ immoral means to attain their goals however respected and loved leaders are those who stick to their morals thereby minimizing the possibility of reprimand for their actions.

“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