Philosopy: The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli Essay

Niccolo Machiavelli was a unique politician, philosopher, and writer who lived in Florence, Italy during the European Renaissance period of the late 15th and early 16th centuries. He is most famously known for writing his ruthless handbook for rulers, The Prince, during his time in exile in 1513. This contentious piece of literature has been fondly referred to as “the guidebook for tyrants and totalitarians,” according to the documentary, Machiavelli: The Prince by director Jett Rink. However, the document has also been credited with positively paving the way for ethnic and religious toleration, individual rights, and modern democracies all throughout history; and it inevitably set the stage for future governments to come. In this way, it is

Locke’s thought on having a king, laws, and a civil society under a social contract was so all men can enjoy and protect their rights. Where all men obtain the right to life, all humans have the right to live and life shouldn't be taken away from another human being. The right to liberty, protecting an individual's freedom and unreasonable detention. The right to property, a citizen in which Locke thought a human's labour was his own, anything created or made should remain that individuals as well and the right to rebel against unjust rulers and laws.

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.

While reading the “The Second Treatise of Government,” you can notice and see that John Locke has a strong standing for civil rights as well as helping with the development of the Constitution of the United States. He states that the “consent of the governed,” is basically saying that communities are not put together by the divine right or ruled by. Paternal, familial, and political are types of powers that John Locke mentions that have all have unlike characteristics. He inspired others to believe in and want equal rights and democracy. John Locke talks about the state of nature, which basically states that no one has the power to be ruler of someone, as well as they are able to do what they want in a freely matter. In other words people are born just like anyone else that is born, and should have equally rights to property, health, and liberty, and that no one should have the power over anyone. Everyone should be able to live and enjoy his or her own freedom and wellbeing. However, the state of nature is not a guarantee to have natural laws, which could help with the protecting of one’s property. According to him having your own personal freedom was the true meaning of state of nature. John Locke thought that people were following his faith in human rationality through the declaration of Locke. John Locke states that if the government takes away from others for them to empower them then the people have right and opportunity to go against

In the beginning of Locke’s section we are given a quote about Sir Robert Filmer. Sir Robert Filmer really only gives the view from Aristotle which is that the sovereign and the people are two different things. For this view, the people are the ones who do NOT have the political power and Locke is against that view. he believes that the people are the ones who have the political power. For Locke, the state of nature is that all men are free. Society consists of all free individuals and each of those individuals lives their OWN life with their OWN desires. I also agree with his idea that “liberty is not license.” Freedom does not mean that you have the ability to do absolutely whatever you want. There are still laws that you must abide

John Locke’s views on rebellion and civil disobedience puts emphasis on the “state of nature” of man. He determines that man is naturally in this state of nature, meaning man has the power to resolve his issues himself. The only way for a man to execute his personal justice is for his personal property to be damaged by another man. Retaliating only to the extent of the crime committed. When brought together, these men formed a community and the only way for them to function was to implement restrictions on this state of nature in exchange for the protection by the Executive and peace provided by the Legislative. If any of these rules were to be broken it would be punished by the executive and not the person the crime was committed against. Locke stated that if the legislature was to overturned due to a portion of the community rebeling, then a new legislature implicated. This exposes the people to the danger of a naturally state of mind but in a large body. The rest of the people have no other choice but to protect their property themselves, creating a civil war.

According to Locke, the state of war occurs because of destruction and enmity, which results from the perfect freedom and liberty found in the state of nature. This idea is similar to Hobbes’ reasons for the state of war, yet, Locke believes that it also occurs because of the “presence of a common authority that fails to act justly, the only possible state is a state of war, because the arbitrating power in place to stop war is itself in violation of the laws of nature and justice.” However, Locke’s law of nature that governs this state goes against Hobbes’ idea of self-preservation, because it does not allow for man to harm another’s life, liberty, health or possessions. This natural law is based on the idea that every man may be free in the state of nature, but everything belongs to one omnipotent power, “the Maker”. This natural law aids in the peace and preservation of all mankind, and is a responsibility that is given to every man and along with that the authority to punish transgressors of this law. This is another natural right of man, but it is one that could never be truly enforced in the state of nature. Since Locke established that all men are created equal by the same omnipotent power, he is also saying that no one man has the power to

“It is much safer to be feared than loved.” This quotation was just a specimen of the harsh and very practical political annotation of the legendary historian, Niccolò Machiavelli – philosopher, patriot, diplomat, advisor and statesman. He was born as the son of a poor lawyer in 1498, but he never let boundaries restrict him. He still received an excellent humanist education from the University of Florence and was soon after appointed as the Second Chancellor of the Republic of Florence.2 His political importance to Florence would soon give him the opportunity to write what is disputed as one of the most significant works in history, The Prince.

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.

Nowadays, it is politically impossible to commit to paper a "training guide" for leaders. There are innumerable detractors to any possible stance or strategy a leader might adopt. As a result of this, all "training" must take place behind closed doors, far from the prying eyes and ears of the news media or the public. But this has not always been the case.

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

Niccolo Machiavelli is a very pragmatic political theorist. His political theories are directly related to the current bad state of affairs in Italy that is in dire need of a new ruler to help bring order to the country. Some of his philosophies may sound extreme and many people may call him evil, but the truth is that Niccolo Machiavelli’s writings are only aimed at fixing the current corruptions and cruelties that filled the Italian community, and has written what he believed to be the most practical and efficient way to deal with it. Three points that Machiavelli illustrates in his book The Prince is first, that “it is better to be feared then loved,”# the second

For Locke, It becomes increasingly difficult to defend the natural right due to the possibility of the state of war. In order to preserve the right, the people would also have to come together to form a social contract. They would then establish a state, whose job would be to PRESERVE the right, and to punish those who seek to attack it. The state will then decide upon a neutral judge. John Locke argues that the government’s only job is to act as an fair mediator of self-defense. This way the power of the state comes from consent and delegation of the governed. The government is limited by its people’s natural right and cannot overstep its bounds. Since the law of nature states that a person cannot violate another’s natural right, the same mentality must be kept by the government, or sovereign. If the sovereign fails to preserve or

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.