The Key Differences Between Realists, Morality of State Theorists, and Cosmopolitans

In The Prince, Machiavelli doesn’t hesitate to recommend that a ruler employ conventionally immoral methods against his own subjects to maintain authority over them, but he does imply that whatever a ruler does should ultimately benefit the community. A Prince’s actions may be cruel, manipulative, or otherwise immoral, but they put him in the position to govern. On occasion, Machiavelli even suggests that gaining power through immoral acts is the best way to improve a community because immorality is pragmatic in a way morality is not. A strong ruler established by immoral means can then do good for his state; Machiavelli indicates that simply having power is not enough. A ruler should also use it well. Admittedly, a ruler may only want to do good for his state in an effort to secure his own position at its head, but the effect he has is no less good for the lack of selfless reasoning behind it. Machiavelli implies that a strong ruler who necessarily acquires and keeps power through immoral actions has a generally good effect on his state, which is a naturally moral byproduct of otherwise immoral deeds.

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

Nuclear bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, not answering the call for help in Rwanda, allowing Germany to take over Czechoslovakia, supporting the creation of the state of Israel, giving out loans (with interest) to developing countries, and the creation of the United Nations are all forms of international interference and cooperation amongst states. When looking at these examples and many more, it begs the question, does morality play a role in international affairs of a state? George Kennan, a prominent Skeptic, would argue that in international politics “other criteria, sadder, more limited, more practical, must be allowed to prevail.”

Niccolò Machiavelli, established himself as a prominent Renaissance figure when his book The Prince, shared his political philosophies on how to gain and retain power. The “Princely Virtues” were a set of standards that discussed what he considered to be good and bad characteristics of a ruler. Ultimately, Machiavelli explained that morals were not always required to play a part in politics, which in contrast opposed many principles established by his predecessors. Some of the listed characteristics contest his views, meanwhile others disagree. According to Machiavelli’s opinions, always acting moral will ruin a person as the number of immoral people in the world outweigh the good. Machiavelli writes “Other things seem to be vices, yet if put into practice will bring the prince security and well-being,” (186). In this case, if a ruler has the desire to keep his status, he must learn not to be virtuous when it is required. From Machiavelli’s notion, four “positive” attributes a ruler should acquire are cruelty rather than compassion, egoism instead of philanthropy, greediness versus being open-handed, and finally, inflexibility in preference to being easy to deal with. Machiavelli stands by these rules, as he knows a feared leader is more beneficial than a beloved leader. For example, a compassionate, philanthropic leader implies generosity to the people. If the

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.

There are two, key conflicting theories in the study of international relations, idealism and realism, known to scholars as the ‘Great Debate’. Realism, offers an account of international affairs through four central ideas; that states are the key players in international relations, the decentralised international stage is anarchic, actors are rational and self-interested

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

When examining Machiavelli political ideals, it is hard to look at it without saying this is cruel and not ideal in any sense. Machiavelli is a prime example for a strong leader that pursues justice through unification and has shown to be very open-minded. Justice doesn’t just come through cruelty and strength, it also requires intelligence with careful studies. As exhibited in the prior quote, he takes in historical mistakes and success to shape his ideal. To have a culture with justice, Machiavelli pushes that “It is necessary for a prince who wish to maintain his position to learn how not to be good, and to use this knowledge or not to use it accordingly” (224). It is quite evident that Machiavelli is willing to use the full extent of his power without fear. Through his willingness and open-mindedness, he examines both side, good and the bad, for the benefit of his country. He believes only those that can utilize both knowledge is fit for the position of being a prince. When he says knowledge, it goes deep into the studies of history and past experiences. It is shown time and time again throughout his

Another realism scholar, Nicholo Machiavelli proposed a series of guides for state’s leaders to make the most of their power. One of his advices is promises must be broken when there is interest to do so and he supposed that ethical behavior is not desirable in order for someone to achieve their objectives. Other scholars like Thomas Hobbes, E.H Carr, and Hans Morgenthau, they all believed that the concept of balance of power is the preeminent way to uphold the international anarchy, by means of power and security among

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

Histories have seen many of those gigantic powers who have no mercy on human being, people who used the concept of Machiavelli. Our brain is not a machine and working with food, water and air, they are not all the same. Each one is created in a way genetically and the initializes of someone’s life integrated. Thinking about and expressing meaning for the existences around is I different, so as this is happens, each one takes the prince’s ideology in their way. And I think most of who used it, beginning from the dictators and democratic reached a way, but for some lost the track and reached a dead-end, and for some reached the evaluation of their acts.

In contrast to the normative emphasis of ideal theorist political realism provides a stark contrast. According to realists, ideas about morality or justice have no place in an international political system that is dominated by the quest for security and order. States must act in their own self-interest to ensure their own survival in an anarchic world. There is no world government to protect them; they must emphasise power over any ethical considerations. As such, realists categorically deny many of the arguments put forward by Singer. William Galston provides a sharp criticism on Singer’s point on proximity by stating “if I see two children drowning – my own and someone else’s – and I can only save one, does it follow that I must be indifferent as to which one? Conversely, he correctly identifies that we will always give moral weight to those closest to as us and it is therefore his conclusions that “it is no accident that we have never seen a society that embraced Singer’s principle, and I can say with utter confidence that we never will.” It seems to that any inability to comply with Singer’s prescriptions proves that there is fault with the prescription rather than us.