Means In The Prince By Niccolo Machiavelli's The Prince

Within regard to war though, one’s army could never be considered too cruel, by keeping an army disciplined and united cruelty was required even that seen as inhumane(Machiavelli,trans; W. K. Marriott). Back to the peoples views no matter the strength of the loving bond they might of held for their prince, people simply will not follow orders if it means sacrificing their own prosperity. The threat of punishment demands orders to be followed, guaranteeing subjects compliance to the prince. This “the time isn't worth the crime” solution remains true in modern society. There are rules set up in every society that are meant to hinder deviance and maintain stability in the community. Most people today follow laws to fulfill their feelings of moral obligation or simply because they have respect for the system they live under. Whereas many others decide to follow laws in fear of the sanction or punishment they might face for breaking the law(Radelet,Lacock). This is seen typically as an argument that those in favor of capital punishment make in the United states. It is specifically argued that the use of the death penalty acts as a deterrent in contemporary society. Secondly if considering capital punishment in contemporary society, it also acts to discourage the general population from going forth committing capital crimes(Radelet,Lacock). Although truly there is no scientific evidence to back up this statement, it would suffice as an explanation to Machiavelli

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.

In The Prince, Machiavelli discusses ways in which a ruler should obtain power and maintain power, emphasizing the concept of gaining power through virtue versus fortune. Virtue, or virtu in the original Italian, is defined as the masculine quality of power, and not necessarily tied to ideas of morality as it is in the English definition.

This passage comes from Chapter 18 of Machiavelli’s The Prince. The thesis of the chapter is that a ruler should not always be honest and trustworthy; rather, he should break the rules when it is to his advantage. In this quote, Machiavelli states that it is necessary to do wrong in order to hold onto power. At the same time, he makes clear that a ruler’s subjects must think that the ruler has positive qualities. Machiavelli views both these characteristics—apparent goodness and actual lack of it—as essential to a ruler’s success. In doing so, he implicitly makes the statement that there is no contradiction between the two. It is possible to do wrong and still be seen as good, Machiavelli implies, not because people judge a ruler’s hypocrisy as benign or beneficent; instead, it is possible because the people can simply be kept in the dark about the true nature of the ruler.

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

In order to maintain a safe society justice and order must be upheld at all times. Machiavelli agrees with this belief in his “Qualities of a Prince” writing when he says “it is absolutely necessary that he not worry about being considered cruel; for without that reputation he will never keep an army prepared or ready for combat.” Though Machiavelli was speaking about an army, the concept could be applied to society, specifically the death penalty in general. This is because it could be argued that taking another human life is cruel, no matter the circumstances; but if the threat of taking a life is the matter that keeps a potential murderer from

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,

In Chapter 14 of The Prince, by Niccolo Machiavelli, his claim is that a leader should put his focus totally on war. In the chapter Machiavelli persuades Lorenzo the Magnificent and the reader on how you should agree with his claim by explaining that you need to focus on war in order to be prepared when the time comes. Additionally, Machiavelli provides the example about how Philopoemen, Prince of the Achaeans, focused on every situation he could about war so that his soldiers would be prepared to fight. In Chapter 14 Machiavelli writes, “As regards action, he ought above all things to keep his men well organized and drilled, to follow incessantly the chase, by which he accustoms his body to hardships, and learns something of the nature of

Niccolo Machiavelli was an Italian philosopher, politician, historian, and writer who wrote “The Prince” which coined the word Machiavellian, which is used to describe a person that is ruthless in the way that they pursue their goals and or means. I believe that when putting the work of “The Prince” by Machiavelli into conversation with the film “The Marriage of Maria Braun” that the main character Maria Braun is acting in a very machiavellian way, and since the character Maria Braun is an embodiment of post war Germany, it showed the status that Germany was in at the time and the lengths at which the country was going to survive and rebuild.

While he should be utilitarian in regards to violence in most cases, there should be personal virtues that he will not compromise. The power and glory of being a politician make it easy for even the most moral man to become desensitized to violence. Ordering a military attack may cause great anguish for a moral politician at first, but less so with each additional act of violence. Due to this desensitization, it is essential that politicians can determine when an action cannot be morally justified. Shue explains how systematic political violence, however reprehensible, is more moral than torture; “It is in this respect of violating the prohibition against assault upon the defenseless, then, that the manner in which torture is conducted is morally more reprehensible than the manner in which killing would occur if the laws of war were honored. In this respect torture sinks below even the well-regulated mutual slaughter of a justly fought war”(Shue

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

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

Machiavelli’s The Prince can be utilized as a guidebook to answer: “How best can a ruler maintain control of his state?” Therefore, if any employer reads it as a how-to-book rather than just a work of political theory, they can be seen as the ruler while the state would be the rest of the employees. If this is followed like an agenda, the sole purpose of government is not the good of the people but the stability of the state and the perpetuation of the established ruler’s control. It would define the city as an entity existing to serve its ruler rather than its populace. Obtaining the support of the people is not a goal in itself, but rather a means for ensuring that the city remains fortified.

The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli presents a detailed analysis of how to acquire political power and maintain it. The author discusses how great men should conduct themselves and the desired principles of a princely government. Utopia by Sir Thomas More illustrates what the character Raphael Hythloday, its narrator, suggests to be the perfect human society found in the island of Utopia. This essay looks at why Machiavelli thinks a prince needs to have virtù in order to rule well, and whether Fortuna can actually foster the prince’s virtù. It will also look at the extent to which Utopia provides an argument that a leader has to have virtù in order to govern well. The essay will explore if there is any proof in Utopia that Fortuna plays a role in fostering virtù.