Discourse On Livy

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 is unapologetic about the asserted inevitability of a ruler committing immoral, or even evil, deeds to obtain power, but advises that the suffering should be minimized and the injured party should eventually profit. He writes, “Well-used cruelty (if one can speak well of evil) one may call these atrocities that are committed at a stroke, in order to secure one’s

In other words Machiavelli says that human nature praises certain qualities and blame others, but there is no way that humans can do all the good things while avoiding the bad things. What makes a "good prince" in the eyes of Machiavelli is one that figures out how to not take so much blame when he does wrong, and tries to do as many good things as he can. For example regarding generosity and miserliness, Machiavelli says to be considered truly generous, one must be miserly at times:"A prince, therefore, being unable to use his virtue of generosity in a manner which will not harm himself... should, if he is wise, not worry about being called a miser; for with time, he will come to be considered more generous..." (53) In one final contrast, according to Machiavelli in regards to courage and cowardice, mercy and treachery he says "That every prince must desire to be considered merciful and not cruel; never the less, he must take care not to misuse this mercy...Therefore, a prince must not worry about the reproach of cruelty, when it is a matter of keeping his subjects united and loyal" (55). According to Machiavelli,

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 was not concerned with whether a person was inherently good or bad, nor was he concerned with whether the elites exploited the weak. He was only concerned with whether an individual was competent or incompetent. A cruel dictator who kept his state in check would be look upon more favorable than a weak, but good-mannered politician who is unable to secure any influence. “Cesare Borgia was considered cruel; yet his cruelty restored Romagna, uniting it in peace and loyalty. If this result is considered good, than he must be judged must kinder than the Florentines…” (Machiavelli, p. 59) In Machiavelli’s eyes, the end justifies the means which is the central underlying message in his work, “The Prince.” Machiavelli was one of the first to suggest the realism of politics and that practical methods were superior to moral actions. At the time, many people would look to religion and to the Church for guidance in state affairs. The Church’s power was great at the time because many European rulers were Catholic and would often seek to the Church for guidance or mediation. In fact, Machiavelli disliked the immense power the Church had and advocated for secularism in politics. Machiavelli believes that religion was holding people back from effectively governing states and that they needed to use their own intuition instead of their own religion and idealism. “I deem it best to stick to

Machiavelli did not energize the thought in confiding in the ones that lead, however, “[…] men are a sorry lot and will not keep their promises to you, you likewise need not keep yours to them.” (230) He hoped for strategy, injustice, and unlawfulness from his kin and composed his tenets all things considered under the beliefs of being a pragmatist. While discovering “they are ungrateful, fickle, simulators and deceivers, avoiders of danger, greedy for gain” (228) the function of Prince was to hold and manage opposed to giving the general population a chance to thrive or set a

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.

He advises that “it is unnecessary for a prince to have all the good qualities I have enumerated, but it is very necessary to appear to have them”. Machiavelli continues to say that it is impossible for a prince to have all of the virtues and even if a ruler was virtuous, it would not help him to maintain power. This is quite different from Aristotle, who did not view virtue as a tool used to get what one wants, but rather as a goal one sought to achieve. The use of virtue as a weapon in pursuit of power for ones’ own gain is a new kind of virtue which first appears in Machiavelli’s writing. The term criminal virtue is when virtue is used as a mean towards an end, often to keep and maintain power. For Machiavelli, if virtue was used for self service, it was still considered being virtuous. The selfish nature of Machiavelli’s virtue is where he and Aristotle differ because for Aristotle being virtuous could not be a selfish

Although the political life of Niccolo Machiavelli is quite interesting when analyzing his views on government and religion, his personal life and experiences were equally a representation of him as a humanist. He was described by some as never offensive and possessing a genuine understanding of human weakness. Niccolo formed a quite

"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

Relying on the needs of the society of that time, Machiavelli comes to the conclusion that the most important task is the formation of a single Italian state (Machiavelli 15). Developing his thoughts, the author comes to the following inference: only a prince can become a leader capable of leading people and building a unified state. It is not a concrete historical personality but someone abstract, symbolic, possessing such qualities that in the aggregate are inaccessible to any living ruler. That is why Machiavelli devotes most of his research to the issue of what qualities should the prince possess to fulfill the historical task of developing a new state. The written work is constructed strictly logically and objectively. Even though the image of an ideal prince is abstract, Machiavelli argues that he should be ruthless, deceiving, and selfish.

     Machiavelli’s argument also focuses on the topic of integrity and generosity and on how a political leader should keep his word. On one hand, he states that it is commendable for a political leader to live by integrity and to be considered generous; however the leaders who have accomplished great deeds throughout history hardly cared about keeping their word and were men that were known to be able to manipulate every situation by clever and shrewd means. Since it is impossible to always maintain all the qualities that man consider good and also maintain a state in his view, a great leader would know when to break those qualities when it is needed for the preservation of the state. However, he warns of excess generosity and the burdens it brings because in order for a leader to maintain his reputation as generous, he has to continuously tax his people in order to raise his funds. This process in turn makes those who employ excessive generosity appear to be the most miserly of all since they tax everyone in order to appear generous to a few.

Niccoló Machiavelli is perhaps the greatest political thinker in history. He was a historian, musician, a poet, and he wrote comedies. He liked poetry as much as he liked philosophy. Machiavelli wrote and collected poems. His works, which are inspired by his life experiences, have been read by many of the worlds greatest politicians. Niccoló Machiavelli’s writing was influenced by the Medici family, the Soderini government in Italy, and his own diplomatic career. His great work, The Prince, is legendary for its impact in politics and its controversial proposals.

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).