The Concept Of Virtue In 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.

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.

Machiavelli uses a compound-complex sentence to inform those who want to be a leader the need of malevolent. Machiavelli uses an independent and dependent clause to gain attention from audience with the purpose of clearing his idea. For Machiavelli’s long sentences in the end of the first paragraph, the prince “profession of virtue” will get “destroyed” by other evil. This cause and effect sentence help the audience to have an images of the impossible of a perfect pure personality of a leader. He warn those who want to be a leader that the prince should be wise and knowing when to act evil rather than good. Moreover, he lists good and bad adjectives such as “cruel” and “compassionate” to imply that a good ruler need to be both moral and immoral. .After all the conventional moral advice, he convey to the prince that action that appear good will damage his position, prince’s power, while those that depict as bad will enhance it.

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,

In The Prince, Machiavelli begins by defining virtue as being able to lead with fear and not invoking hate. As evidence he conjures a situation where a prince will give his citizens “hope that the evil will not be for long” (73) which in turn makes his subjects keener toward him. However, virtue is more than this initial definition. In Chapter 3 Machiavelli suggests that a prince needs to be able to see into the future of his people and should live on their land so they are able to understand the needs of their people. (44) By living with his people Machiavelli implies that they the prince will be more understanding of the issues and will be able to overcome them before it turns into something catastrophic. A prince must form strong bonds with their citizens, and not become hated.

In The Prince, Machiavelli explains what a good and successful prince should be like. He advocates a strong, cutthroat authority figure and encourages the winning of power by any means necessary. The main theme in The Prince is that mob rule is dangerous, for people know only what is good for themselves and not what is good for the whole. The common people, in Machiavelli’s view, “are ungrateful, fickle, liars, and deceivers, they shun danger and are greedy for profit; while you treat them well, they are yours”. He believes that these commoners should be

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.

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.

In Machiavelli’s depiction of virtu, regarding the womanly fortuna, he proves the need for the virtuous man to use his freewill to exercise ruthlessness over Fortune in order to control the partial sphere of influence he has over her. For at times, when having the end in mind while picking the means, a resistor to Fortune may be required to pick a cruel means in order to obtain successful resistance against Fortune. For instance, an admiral of Machiavelli’s virtu may see it proper to use a blitzkrieg tactic in order to defeat an enemy. He would realize the likelihood of the military operation ending in great causalities for his troupes, but would also see the bloodbath necessary to defeating his enemy. If the admiral were too cautious or fearful as to make such a bold move, he could face lesser odds of victory. Machiavelli shows this approach to be successful more often than not backed by his reference to Pope Julius II, who acted impetuously in his dealings, and deemed successful. So we see that resisting Fortune can require a level of virtu that is able to make tough and risky decisions in an unflinching manor; Virtu that is unafraid of the possible injuring

There is, however, a troubling aspect to this kind of scale, leading to an important question for those seeking more virtù. If one copies the actions of another person, how is it that one can ever be greater than the person whom he imitates; at the very least, how can human history itself escape being a story of increasingly mediocre statesmen? The only way to resolve this seeming issue is to understand how Machiavelli first conceives of virtù. In Chapter Six, the majority of the discussion regarding virtù centers on the value of the abstract notions of skill and strength of character. Even in the passages that deal with Moses, Romulus, Cyrus, Theseus, and Hiero, the only tangible, imitable advice the reader receives is to disband an old militia, drop old friends, and arise at an opportune moment. This hardly seems enough to take over a state given the immense difficulties with which such an action is associated. Machiavelli, at least in the beginning, has removed the scaffolding from the building he has created, leaving the reader to wonder what exactly he should replicate to gain virtù.

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

"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

Speaking of such qualities as ruthless and mercy, Machiavelli argues that every ruler would like to be regarded as merciful and not cruel. Another thing is that often in order to retain power the ruler has to show cruelty. If the state is threatened with chaos or mess, the task of the prince is to prevent this even if it is necessary to arrange some reprisals. After all, with respect to the rest of the citizens, these executions will become a noble deed since riots and chaos would bring suffering to them (Machiavelli 24). Machiavelli provides an example of Cesare Borgia whose cruelty led to peace in the state. In that way, the