The Prince A Good Or Bad Examples Of Humanism

According to Machiavelli, the most important resource a prince can have is the support of the people. he feels that a prince who is able maintain a positive relationship between

Machiavelli states that human nature is inherently flawed in his work The Prince. People are selfish, easily deceived, and are never satisfied. Humans act in their own self interest, believe what their eyes tell them and are never truly happy no matter how many riches they acquire. These are traits which everyone possesses, but some choose to not take ownership of. While these traits do not make human nature evil, but rather easier to take advantage of. Machiavelli argues throughout the book that if a ruler understand how manipulate these fatal flaws they can rule them without getting over thrown.

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’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

Niccolo Machiavelli’s book “The Prince” speaks about what a great ruler should possess in order to have the loyalty and unity of his people. That to be a great Prince your people must see you as compassionate but behind the curtain you may act as your true self, even if that self is cruel. As long your subjects see you as a compassionate ruler, your rule will be a great one and known even after death.

Cesare Borgia was a famous politician and cardinal in Italy, but his rise to power is controversial because of the immorality that was necessary to get to that position. Cesare Borgia is mentioned many times in The Prince by Niccoló Machiavelli because of the discussion of whether it is appropriate to achieve goals by immoral means. Before passing judgment on Cesare Borgia it’s important to be aware of all the immoral actions he took over his lifetime.

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.

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

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.

human nature is dark and disobedient. He wrote in his book “the prince” that an

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

At the turn of the 16th century, the Italian Peninsula was marred in brutal conflicts. Nations across Europe, such as France, Spain and the Holy Roman Empire constantly raged wars to keep each other out of the numerous territories around Italy. During this tumultuous time period, a man named Niccolo Machiavelli studied in Florence and witnessed firsthand the issues that rulers often faced while attempting to conquer these Italian cities. His experiences prompted him to write a literary work on his opinion of the ruling class, and his philosophy on how rulers should rule over their subjects. However, his novel The Prince, is an interesting outlier of the time, as parts of it contradict the popular social view of Humanism, which focused on the

On the contrary, Machiavelli believes that man should look out for himself and no one else; he believes that men are only concerned with their own self-interest anyways. Human nature is a concept that Machiavelli really mocks in a sense in that he sets guidelines in exactly what a prince needs to be in order to be successful. He states that the prince should be the one and only sole authority, and he must be trustworthy and cause fear in order to have

When Socrates was executed by hemlock poison in 399 BC, he believed that his death would prove his point. His final public discourse to the trial that would serve as his criticism of Athenian democracy and morals and thus, made him immortal while the men who condemned him were forgotten by the pages of history. When he spoke these words which are now upheld as one of the greatest monologues in recorded history, we can see the inspiration from his apology in the work of Niccolo Machiavelli’s seminal work, the Prince. Though they lived many centuries apart, their works were written in eerily similar contexts. Socrates’ Athens was marked by discord, with tyrants coming and going and the fragile democracy fighting only to protect their reputations. Machiavelli lived in a world of city-states and intrigue, with a fractured Italy struggling to regain its once glorious reputation as the home of the world’s greatest empire. Both of these men were visionaries of their time, rejecting the established order and trying to build a new one. However, the world that these two men imagine are starkly different from one another. One is optimistic, believing that philosophy and justness is king, while the other is a realist who is willing to bend morals and obfuscate the truth in order to ensure stability. If Socrates had been alive to see the vision of the Prince that Machiavelli had written of, I do not believe that he would have been impressed and it would have contrasted greatly with his