Macolili Vs Machiavelli

He discusses that the prince have military knowledge, love and fear, trustworthiness, and good and bad reputations. He deeply believes in the art of war. "...a prince must not have any objective nor any thought, nor take up any art, other than the art of war and its ordering and discipline; because it is the only art that pertains to him who commands. And it is of such virtue that not only does it maintain those who were born princes, but many times makes men rise to that rank from private station; and conversely one sees that when princes have thought more of delicacies than of arms, they have lost their state." He also writes about whether it is better to be loved or feared, stating that it is best to be feared, but not hated. Love can change in an instant, and it is better to always have control, even if the prince must be feared. Patriotism and dedication to the state was also a very important aspect. In conclusion, Machiavelli strived for power and strength by any means possible. Through violence and fear, the end result would be worth it to him.

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.

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

As philosophers, both Socrates and Niccolo Machiavelli developed theories in response to the warring political environment around them. However, the theories and principles developed by the two philosophers are vastly different in regard to the concept of truth, Socrates would hate Machiavelli’s model prince due to Machiavelli’s manipulative view of truth. While Socrates desired a state that focuses on fundamental truth and ethical decisions, Machiavelli advocated a state led by a pragmatic, logical, and even cruel decision maker. The difference between the two theories is stark, not only would Socrates disagree with Machiavelli’s concept of a prince, he would view the prince with utter

assuming in this case that there is a provocation, that there is some sort of “reason” for retaliation, yet Machiavelli takes more of a proactive stance on violence. Machiavelli informs his prince of leaders who have benefitted in killing their enemies before they have had a chance to do him harm. He mentions the duke, Alexander, who, “killed as many [dispossessed rulers] as he could lay hands on” (Machiavelli, Chapter 7, Page 28), and Agathocles the Sicilian who ruled his people so ruthlessly- killing the richest and

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

Socrates and Niccolo Machiavelli were both incredibly influential in the development of Western philosophical thought, specifically in relation to ethics in politics. Machiavelli’s text The Prince, written during a period of political turmoil in Italy, outlines the necessary steps a prince must take to obtain both power and authority. Plato’s The Last Days of Socrates assesses the moral and ethical guidelines an ideal leader should possess through the beliefs and teachings of Socrates. While both texts had similar objectives, their opinions were quite contradictory. Socrates would have found Machiavelli’s concept of the “Prince”, and the government he creates to be both unethical and fundamentally flawed. Socrates places higher value on the maintenance and creation of justice, while Machiavelli stresses the process of obtaining and preserving power, unethical or not. Due to their differences in their ideas of virtue, knowledge, and justice it can be concluded that Socrates would not be supportive of the government in which The Prince proposes.

Machiavelli believed wicked means were to be used to achieve a virtuous outcome. In his eyes, a successful ruler was able to balance ethical virtue with harsh, sometimes even merciless pragmatism.11 If this meant partaking in the most ruthless acts of murder, brutalizing,

Lady Macbeth remarks,“yet do I fear thy nature; It is too full o’ th’ milk of human kindness”(I. 5. 16-17). Macbeth is too pure in nature, he has good ambitions, but he needs to have evil intentions to get what he wants. This coincides with Machiavelli’s principles because Macbeth has “to slaughter fellow-citizens, betray friends, to be devoid of honour, pity, for these are means which may lead to power”(page 21). Again, Machiavelli’s principle of doing what it necessary to gain power aligns with

Although Socrates encourages questioning authority, he focuses on achieving morality and justice. He believes that

People are unlikely to overthrow a ruler that they fear, for they dread the punishments of failure. If the ruler is not feared by the people, he will eventually upset enough of them that they will rise up against him. They will overthrow him because of his perceived weakness, and his name and image will be shamed in the eyes of both his government and his people. Machiavelli believes that the state is completely separate from the ruler’s private life. No matter how immoral or heartless the ruler may be in private, only his public image is important. A ruler can be a terrible, sleazy person on their own time, and when not involved with matters of the state, but at any time when the leader is involved in politics and the state, you cannot afford to injure the image of the ruler or else anarchy will develop. With this kind of rebellion can come revolution, war, and many other tragedies that could be otherwise avoided.

A family of monarchy which tortured Machiavelli for months causing him great suffrage and sorrow. He writes to Lorenzo “May I trust, therefore, that Your Highness will accept this little gift in the spirit in which it is offered: and if Your Highness will deign to peruse it, you will recognize in it my ardent desire that you may attain to that grandeur which fortune and your own merits presage for you.” This enough is confusing because if this is the same principality that caused so much suffering why dedicate a book to let their reign continue into longevity? As to add to this confusion, Machiavelli explains how a prince should use cruelty and violence correctly against the people. To use cruelty and punishment all at once so that the people learn to respect you by fear. He includes that if you had a choice on either being loved or feared, be feared for love can change as quick as it came. Fear of punishment, people would avoid and be subservient. He also goes on to put out that a prince must be cunning like a fox yet strong and fearsome like a lion. To use Realpolitik, morality and ideology left out for the world is not these things as you should not be as well. Furthermore, Machiavelli explains what must happen when a new ruler overtakes a new city and the people in it. “And whoever becomes the ruler of a free city and does not destroy it, can expect to be destroyed by it,

This is different from Nietzsche’s approach because he does not employ definitions and descriptions as much, but rather compares the degrees of severity in the effects of both love and fear. Machiavelli begins by noting that love is “held by the tie of obligation” and thus one may break that bond if he or she faces difficulty or has a personal interest. This is then compared with fear which is “bound by the apprehension of punishment” and is, therefore, a reliable relationship. Machiavelli compares these two examples of cause and effect to emphasize that in the context of an army, it is better to be feared than loved. His use of rhetoric here makes the reader consider the outcome of different war scenarios if the leader is not feared. He proposes that an army that loves its commander may fall apart due to the frail and fickle nature of man when in the heat of battle. This is then compared to a commander who has instilled a healthy fear in his army and, as a result, has remained victorious and united in the face of war. By using these techniques, he effectively argues that the impacts of being feared are far better than those of being loved. This method of comparison is different from Nietzsche’s because Machiavelli assumes the definitions of his terms and goes right ahead to showing causes and effects of love and fear. Nietzsche

Machiavelli ties virtue very closely to that of prudence. He defines virtue as acting exceptionally and draws a distinction between morality and virtue. In many respects Machiavelli defines virtue by prudence. If a ruler is able to balance his violence, keep his subjects appeased, and have a dire understanding of his threats, then in Machiavelli's eyes the ruler has a strong virtue. What must be understood is that the throne is always in jeopardy and someone is always there to try to knock the prince off his pedestal. This is a prime understanding that a prince must have, and fuels the infamous argument by Machiavelli that it is better to be feared than loved. Machiavelli explains that, for the most part, love is very subjective and eventually will subside unless further concessions are made to appease his subjects. In addition, people only care about their personal conveniences and a prince would have to overextend himself if he were to be loved by all. Fear, however, is not subjective and has a universal effect on all his people. Fear can be attained by sporadic violent acts. One must understand, however, that massive amounts of violence can not be done because it would portray the Prince as tyrant, and might stir up his people to revolt against him. The acts must be calculated, concise, and serve a direct purpose not only to his benefit but to the

Some rulers like Caligula and Hitler started their reign as being loved by the people then later they used fear to rule because of the difficulties that were arising during their reign. The problem with using fear as Machiavelli suggests is that there is indeed a thin line between being feared and being hated also every other ruler uses fear to govern his people usually pass that line and gets hated by the people. This hatred towards the ruler causes rebel against him. If a ruler were to follow all these guidelines mentioned in chapter 17 that man might be a great respected ruler. Machiavelli says that a ruler must not touch a citizen’s property. He must give justifications if he wants to avoid being hated. But the problem with this is that majority of the ruler chooses fear not according to all of Machiavelli’s guidelines. Unfortunately it is humans’ nature to be greedy, rebellious and envious. So how does the ruler establish the authority without being feared by the people? The answer I believe is love. It is only through love that a ruler can gain people respect, servitude and obedience without stirring up the emotions of fear, anger and hatred. On the other hand the answer perhaps also lies in the social and cultural