Niccolo Machiavelli's The Prince

In chapter XV Machiavelli discusses how it is important to appear as a virtuous ruler, but to not actually possess these qualities. He states, “ one is considered a giver, the other rapacious; one cruel, another merciful; one treacherous, another faithful; one effeminate and cowardly, another bold and courageous; one humane, another haughty; one lascivious, another chaste; one trustworthy, another cunning; one harsh another lenient; one serious another frivolous; one religious another unbelieving; and the like. And I know that everyone will admit that it would be a very praiseworthy thing to find in a prince, of the qualities mentioned above, those that are held to be good; but since it is neither possible to have them nor observe them all completely, because human nature does not permit it, a prince must be prudent enough to know how to escape the bad reputation of those vices that would lose the state for him” (The Portable Machiavelli 127). In this chapter Machiavelli is suggesting that a good ruler can’t be virtuous at all times because it would not be in the best interest of the people.

Machiavelli wrote The Prince in 16th-century. His methods of acquiring and maintaining rule over people are not relevant in today’s modern American society. There are many principles that are still true in politics today, but the methods of ruling can no longer be used in American society today.

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

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

Niccolo Machiavelli’s book “The Prince” speaks about what a great ruler should possess in order to have the loyalty and unity of his people. That to be a great Prince your people must see you as compassionate but behind the curtain you may act as your true self, even if that self is cruel. As long your subjects see you as a compassionate ruler, your rule will be a great one and known even after death.

Machiavelli brought up many controversial and untraditional points regarding what a kingdom or prince was allowed to do to maintain power. The most extreme, being that the prince wasn't held to any moral code in the practice of maintaining power. A prince must be prepared to ward off any conflicting power even if it means breaking traditional moral codes. Other powers, Machiavelli believed, wouldn't be so kind in combat and a prince must fight back with equal or greater force. Another point is that it's better to be feared than loved. Machiavelli believed that love didn't

He thought it was ok to be immoral if it brought power, but not to be too immoral otherwise the populace will revolt. How can one be immoral without being immoral? Well, it’s not possible. To Machiavelli, those who lead have the right to be immoral if the end justifies the mean. For example, if the leader has to execute one person to maintain order of the whole, this act is justified. The leader can make the people fear him or respect him using immorality, but if he abuses the power he receives, he becomes a tyrant and the people will rebel. A leader doesn’t need to worry about his cruelties as long as he can keep his people united and loyal. Fear is strengthened by the thought of punishment which is always effective (Machiavelli, 52). A leader though, when not loved needs to be feared in a way as to not be hated. Machiavelli explained it perfectly when he said, men will love as they wish, and the prince decides who they fear, therefore a wise prince should rely on what he controls, not on what he cannot control, he must soley avoid being hated (Machiavelli 53). His method has been proven. Throughout history rulers have come and

First, Machiavelli thinks a good Prince is able to do whatever is necessary to preserve the state because it is the most important thing. Socrates would see this as an opportunity for a bad Prince to come into power and do whatever he wishes or the corruption of a good Prince. Although Machiavelli is against a Prince being cruel, that does not mean that said Prince will not become cruel. Through cruel acts, the Prince is opening himself to evil by believing that the acts are for the good of the state.

"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

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

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

This raises a question as to the morality of these men presented in The Prince and as to whether they are good or evil. The evil of men

Niccolo Machiavelli’s abstract work of The Prince discusses politics and government and focuses in not only acquiring power, but also how to maintain it. Throughout his work, one of the most prevalent yet disputed themes is between the acquirement of states between principalities and republics. The Prince shows a predominant and constant debate on which group will excel in acquiring power. However, despite Machiavelli’s harsh criticisms on principalities, his work does not solely praise or focus on the excellence of republics. In fact, as Machiavelli continues to speak and provide examples about the successes and failures of both republics and principalities, it becomes clearer that the lone purpose of The Prince is to merely provide tactics in political governance, instruction on how to maintain power once it is acquired, and most importantly, advice on how to become a great leader.

Machiavelli’s lowering of politics creates an impact on the way ordinary subjects and citizens behave, a prince, according to Machiavelli, should be loved but most important to him, this sovereign should be feared, citizens need to obey and follow regulations and be faithful to the ruler, they are expected to honor and fight for their sovereign, in general, Machiavelli does not go into so much detail about the duties of the people, but he explains that by teaching the prince how to manage the system, he is working for the sake of people, as Machiavelli explains, a prince should follow two policies in which one of the two explains how a sovereign must keep balance and unchanged laws when conquering new territories, “not to change their laws or impose new taxes” (Machiavelli’s The Prince, page 8) what he means by this is that a sovereign should respect customs and traditions, the way people