When we look at ancient times (back way to Greek philosophe Aristotle), politics was considered as a so called branch of ethics. Ethics is characterized by the moral behavior of people. We can define politics as “morality” of people when they are organized in social groups. Machiavelli however, was the precursor of a view that politics should be separated from the morality and treated as a separate “special” branch.
If we look at Machiavelli’s “The prince” it sorts of reminds me Shun Tzu’s “Art of war”. It has similar way of guiding and educating the reader, how war (or in this case politics and ruling of lands) should be done. While reading “The Prince” we can see that the author was not especially interested in ethics and morality. He
…show more content…
We may not like what we read and are faced with, but in a long run (and probably deep down inside) that pure soul of power (even the democratic power) is the use of violence to protect it. That is why we have so many wars that were fought in the name of “preserving our values and way of life”. That’s is not very ethical and not very “Christian like”, but it happens all the time and even though some groups protest, it is still being done for the greater good.
Of course, pure violence is never justified, and violence for the sake of violence is bad (and Machiavelli is very clear about that).
One of the best examples of such a behavior is portrayed in my favorite TV series “Scandal”. Our main characters are the ones “in power”. President, his ( and hers ) advisors and famous Chief of undercover Section B613 are the ones who have to face the reality of every day politics and touch (and most of the times very questionable form ethics points of view decision). We can have a sneak peak ‘behind the curtain look” of how its done. Assassinations and manipulation are almost “daily bread” there. Very often we hate the decisions they make, but in the “big picture” it was for the good and sake of “the republic”.
I think that politics should be separated from this “lovey dovey, lets all love each other ethics”, but it should not be separated to far. Its goal should be to work for the greater good of people, and some decisions
“The practice of violence, like all action, changes the world, but the most probable change is to a more violent world” (Arendt pg 80). Violence is contagious, like a disease, which will destroy nations and our morals as human beings. Each individual has his or her own definition of violence and when it is acceptable or ethical to use it. Martin Luther King Jr., Walter Benjamin, and Hannah Arendt are among the many that wrote about the different facets of violence, in what cases it is ethical, the role we as individuals play in this violent society and the political aspects behind our violence.
Ethics defines violence as follows: ?Violence consists of a violation of another person?s or a group of people?s freedom, dignity, integrity, sense of self worth, or well being; it may be physical, psychological, or emotional (Candelaria 907).? Acts of violence can be further defined by legal and illegal employment of methods of coercion for personal or group gain. This is where things become fuzzy. Who defines legal and illegal? ?The instigator of violence might claim that acts of legitimate violence might include military defense, crusades, just wars, acts of purification, acts of faith, and heroic exploits.? (Klausner 268) These same acts would probably be viewed as illegitimate, illegal acts by the victims. So can violence ever be legitimized?
Nicolo Machiavelli’s The Prince and Sun Tzu’s The Art of War both both provide directions for leadership with similar goals. The Prince is primarily geared towards providing valuable information about how a ruler of many principalities may govern different populations and acquire new lands. The Art of War provides us with a schematic of the optimal path to victory. This book is instead directed towards generals of powerful militaries with only the goal of winning. Concepts such as Machiavelli’s view of destruction will be contrasted with Sun Tzu’s victory-oriented argument for taking whole and several of their other ideas will be compared. Although Machiavelli and Sun Tzu have different intended audiences, many of their ancient tactics can
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.
If this world was not justified then we would be nothing. Revolution is justified when the people become dissatisfied with the lack of leadership or even the leadership of one’s country. Violence can range anywhere from murder to suicide or even homicide. Violence is one of the leading causes of death but still even in war this is unacceptable. One way to look at all of this violence is to blame society.. People are logically violent and that's why we live in such a uncontrollable world. When you get angry or get violent
Mahatma Gandhi, a renowned political and spiritual leader, once said that, “I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary, the evil it does is permanent.” Presume you see two men in a heated argument and one of them is about to attack the other, you take a rock and throw it at him and knock him out. On one hand it is a good thing that you prevented the attack but on the other hand you used violence yourself, and there is no doubt that you would not hesitate to use it again. The good that came from the violence that you used lasted for a short time, but the punishment that you get for doing this lasts for a long time. Imperialism of rivalries and nationalism were two of the main reasons that most
Violence is an unavoidable terror that has played one of the, if not the most, important roles in all of history. Without violence, lands wouldn’t be conquered, empires wouldn’t fall, and people wouldn’t have any limits or restrictions. The French Revolution is one example of a violent uprising because the people of France revolted against the rule of King Louis XVI by raiding, storming, and slaughtering for their natural equal rights. The revolution marked the end of a government ruled by monarchy and the start of the Republic of France. One important reason of why the revolution was successful in bringing political change was because it was violent.
In 1513, Niccolo Machiavelli wrote “The Prince,” in which he discussed the characteristics that qualify a leader to have control of his people. Machiavelli claimed that a leader ought to associate with vices that have a positive impact to his rulings to avoid embarrassment, thus building a strong leadership. This claim is policy because it delivers the message of ruling. Machiavelli’s audiences are former rulers or anyone aspiring to become a leader.
Recently, everyone has begun to wonder the same thing: why are so many leaders so… corrupt? Why do they care only about a miniscule group of people, throwing aside morals altogether? The feeling of power creates a superiority complex, letting power go to a leader’s head and giving them the desire and means to execute terrible things. This is a problem because many people in our world acquire their power because others believe they can improve the world. Once power takes control, they become corrupt. It is essential for the public to understand this because otherwise, people in power will gain this complex.
We have rights as individuals and laws to follow to keep peace. Power, however, still drives individuals daily. Everyone loves the sense of power to feel belonging and in charge. The power gives an initial push that can lead to a good result or an avalanche of negatives. The power behind religion fights numerous new laws.
Despite the cruel intentions of the overruling empathic less people who use dictatorship to control and to manipulate the minds of people around themselves to achieve what they want, using violence to get a point across the minds of people just makes them as bad as the ones who do this.Oppression is tool used by many, it destroys and creates limitations for many people. To control many citizens dictators use violence they take away every right or fun that was ever left of the country.They make them fear them lower their education so they wouldn't know about the stuff they are doing.They strip every little spot of freedom someone has.Then they stomp on it til it disappears.But you can't fight fire with fire it just creates more fire.Anyone who
The Prince is essentially a guide book on how to acquire and maintain political power. We can think of it as a collection of rules and methods to achieve a level of superior authority. Its main focus is that the ends—no matter how immoral—justify the means for preserving political authority. While some may agree with this mindset of thinking many today dismiss Machiavelli as a cynic. The book shows rulers how it is that they should act to survive in the real world to maintain authority. While Niccolo Machiavelli’s ideas can be radical, they helped to spark a revolution in political philosophy. Although his ideas might have not been completely original, they were very different and unheard of at the time, The Prince, was published. Machiavelli uses many methods to convey his messages including biblical comparisons and of course metaphors. This character can be viewed in several manners. He is almighty and powerful, stopping at nothing to achieve his goals or have his ways. While this quality does qualify him to be a might leader it also raises the question of immorality. How far will one go to maintain order? Would you stop at nothing to achieve this task? Machiavelli shows this by saying, “it is
“ All violent reforms deserve censure, because they can never do away with evil as long as men are what they are; and, therefore, it is the part of wisdom not to employ violence.” - Leo Tolstoy
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
In the book, The Prince, Niccolo Machiavelli thoroughly explains the lifestyle a proper prince should uphold and the skills/actions he should keep in his arsenal, if the time ever comes. I’ve chosen chapters 15, 16, and 17 to further my claims on whether or not these ideas should be used in today’s government. Chapter 15 mainly focuses on the things for which men, but mainly princes, are praised or blamed for in an everyday society. Chapter 16 touches on how often one should be generous and liberal. Finally, chapter 17, the most controversial chapter of Machiavelli’s book discussed among many, tells the famous line of whether it is better to be loved