Major, Rafael.“ A New Argument for Morality: Machiavelli and the Ancients.” Political Research Quartely vol. 60, no. 2 (June 2007). 171-189. Accessed September 17,
2014. JSTOR.
Parel, A.J. “ Machiavelli’s Notions of Justice: Text and Analysis” Political Theory vol. 18, no. 4 ( Nov, 1990). 528-544. Acessed September 17, 2014. JSTOR.
“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
…show more content…
Major’s primary sources are the writings of classical authors such as Plato and Aristotle, which prove how Machiavelli borrowed much of his advice from classical authors. His main primary source, however, is chapter three of The Prince. His secondary sources such as Nathan Tarcov’s reading of chapter three of The Prince and various writings on Machiavelli by Quentin Skinner suggest that chapter three of The Prince is vital to Machiavelli’s ideology and reasoning of morality. Pearl uses predominately primary sources with his secondary sources supporting his textual analysis and arguments. The primary sources are Machiavelli’s various writings, Cicero’s writings on justice and war, and Dante’s The Divine Comedy. These sources demonstrate how Machiavelli was aware of both the classical and the Christian concept of justice while never completely dependent upon these sources. Parel’s secondary sources such as Quentin Skinner’s observation on Machiavelli and the concept of virtue illustrate how Machiavelli felt about justice. Major uses his primary sources to show that Machiavelli’s arguments were not original; however, Parel uses his primary sources to prove how Machiavelli strayed from the beliefs of classical and Christian authors. Parel and Major use their secondary sources to support their claims. Major’s main points are how Machiavelli diverged from realism through his …show more content…
Major’s article, however, suggests that Machiavelli derived many of his ideas concerning human nature from classical and Christian authors. Major contends that only Machiavelli’s response to human nature is unique. Parel illustrates that Machiavelli did use Christian and classical sources while forming his own concept of justice. These articles also illustrate how Machiavelli viewed self-preservation and fear. Parel argues that Machiavelli believes the crux of human experience is the fear of the unknown. Majors also illustrates how anticipating the unknown was important to the success of the Romans. Both articles also suggest that Machiavelli’s viewed the usage of force as being essential to his concepts of morality and justice. They also both argue that Machiavelli did not believe humans could be inherently moral or just. Both articles mention the importance of self-preservation and highlight that Machiavelli believed war and self-preservation were intertwined. The main difference between the articles is the author’s viewpoint on how Machiavelli used Christian and classical
Trying not to overstep the boundaries of the citizens to get kicked out of power or not doing enough that they replace you. With the power gained from leading it is expected that other princes will try to take power away so the only way to prevent this from happening is to make alliances and maintaining a strong military. Later on, in the novel Machiavelli goes on to focus on what qualities a prince should have and how virtu plays a role in making a proper prince. Although a short novel, it is Machiavelli’s most widely known work and is responsible for creating a negative view on rulers/politicians and also making it seem like anything you do, even immoral, is justifiable if the end goal is worth it. Machiavelli writes “He who neglects what is done for what ought to be done, sooner effects his ruin than his preservation” showing that the use of immoral means is justifiable when the end goal is survival and glory. This book follows the ideals of Italian humanism from the author being from Florence, the heart of the renaissance, dedicating the novel to Lorenzo de’ Medici, an example of a man who invested a lot in helping people learn about philosophy and such subjects to become better humanists.
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
Has somebody ever muttered the words "It is best to be feared than loved "? In any context, this could look like remorseless; however, the deeper the meanings are reached once with a glance at Machiavelli's morals and arguments achieved. Inside this essay, I will discuss the deserves, shortfalls and contravene arguments of the philosopher political philosophy and system. Also, I will be able to check up on Machiavelli's personal history; furthermore to grasp abundant any what and the way drive this argument.
Machiavelli's work was based primarily on achieving power and stability. The citizenry, while important to keep appeased and docile, was not the basis of Machiavelli's perspective. This was not a humanist work; the active engagement of normative, humanist thinking is counterproductive to understanding Machiavelli. In many circumstances, Machiavelli speaks of controlled violence to achieve an end. This discerns that power is not an intrinsic element in itself but an external, conditioned construct that has no true inherent morality. The most pessimistic, however, realistic description of power is simply whomever has the authority to enforce laws--or subservience-- through threat of violence on a specific
Machiavelli suggests that the only remedy for the inevitable instability within societies is extreme order and consolidated power for efficiency. As previously discussed, this may mean that principles such as justice and fairness may need to take the backseat, but all for the greater good according to Machiavelli. The desire to oppress, he argues is natural
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
Machiavelli knew that cruelty and harsh violent actions can be used one of two ways: to destroy the state or to secure it. Focusing on the necessity of politics and war, he understood that some acts of ‘savage cruelty and inhumanity’ were justified. Other justification includes famine and human rights issues. Wars are started to promote unity and avoid a greater conflict such as a world war.
In The Morals of the Prince Machiavelli expresses his presumption on how a prince should act. He expresses that a prince should be feared, merciful, stingy, etc. He is right because if a prince is loved and too generous then people will take advantage of him and that will lead to his down fall. A prince must act appropriately to remain in power. Machiavelli gives his best ideas to keep a prince in power.
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.
Machiavelli has long been required reading for everyone intrested in politics and power. In The Prince Niccolo M
are prominently distinct from one another and they challenge the reader to conceptualize how one man could have written two very different pieces. In utilizing both primary sources, from Machiavelli’s The Prince and Discourses, and scholarly evidence from multiple writers in academia, I will demonstrate that these two texts can co-exist. I aim to provide an understanding of the relationship between the two texts through a strong republican perspective by viewing The Prince as a comprehensive tool and weapon in furtherance of the republic
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 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
It is fundamentally important to preface the discussion hosted in this essay by addressing ourselves to the most mundane question-why consider Machiavelli in the context of philosophy, least of all, political philosophy? This question dominates any philosophical inquiries of the Machiavelli’s political ideologies. Put differently, do the contributions by Niccolò Machiavelli to the various salient discourses in the Western thought, most notably political theory, meet the requisite standard models of academic philosophy? Machiavelli essentially seems not to consider himself a philosopher. In fact, he overtly disapproved of any philosophical inquiries into his works. In addition, his credentials do not qualify him to be properly admitted within the realm of philosophy (NeDermAN, 2002).