The Prince And Discourse On Livy

Rather, he would see both groups, and religion in general, as useful only as a means to an end. Appearing to be part of an organization such as religion can help a leader gain respect and appeal to a larger demographic. But behind closed doors, a leader’s ability to dissociate from the public’s perception of them and solely pursue political gain gives them an edge. Moreover, while More acknowledges that total trust is unrealistic through the meaning of the word “utopia,” Machiavelli extends this idea, characterizing betrayal as an irremovable part of mankind. In regards to religion, he says that “because [men] are wicked, and they would not observe faith for you, you too do not have to observe it for them” (Machiavelli 92).

Niccolo Machiavelli knows the importance of deceit to the ruling class too. Machiavelli says “It is not essential, then, that a Prince should have all the good qualities which I have enumerated above, but it is most essential that he should seem to have them,” (page 46 The Prince) because “men in general judge rather by the eye than the hand.” (page 47 The Prince) To Marx, money allows this type of transformative deception; however, to Machiavelli this ability seems to be more of a character trait. Machiavelli says this can be achieved by appearing to be the “embodiment of mercy, good faith, integrity, humanity, and religion.” (page 47 The Prince) The first four characteristics, he says are the least important when compared to the last. Appearing religious is achievable by being complacent to the Catholic Church and wearing the “cloak of religion”, according to Machiavelli. This “cloak of religion” allows “pious cruelty”, and with his cloak a prince appears justified in his actions, no matter how cruel. (page 59 The Prince). Marx also knows the power of religion to quell the lower class, as the cliché goes, “Religion is the opium of the people.” (Lecture Notes 3/6/13) Religion keeps the poor pacified because they are living for a better afterlife. They are also willing to blindly follow

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

There is an aspect that both Socrates and Machiavelli both speak about in detail within their works that provide a positive connection between them. Machiavelli writes about the mindset of the people in his criticism of the role of religion in the government. In The Prince, Machiavelli does mention principles that have the church as a core part of the prince’s legitimacy, which he refers to as “Ecclesiastical Principles” (The Prince, CH. XI). Machiavelli does confess the the people within the principles are happier, but this is not what he values. He believes that an ideal prince should not encourage religious practices, especially in relation to his role as the ruler. To Machiavelli, he believes that the prince should put loyalty to the state over that of a higher power. He writes “which men are esteemed, being often forced, in order to maintain the state, to act

In Machiavelli’s model, the church was not going to be a factor. He believed that you should love the state more than your soul. At times, it is necessary to do a morally bad thing in order to preserve the state. It is in these times, Machiavelli believed, that it was more important to preserve the state than your own morality.

Machiavelli was not concerned with whether a person was inherently good or bad, nor was he concerned with whether the elites exploited the weak. He was only concerned with whether an individual was competent or incompetent. A cruel dictator who kept his state in check would be look upon more favorable than a weak, but good-mannered politician who is unable to secure any influence. “Cesare Borgia was considered cruel; yet his cruelty restored Romagna, uniting it in peace and loyalty. If this result is considered good, than he must be judged must kinder than the Florentines…” (Machiavelli, p. 59) In Machiavelli’s eyes, the end justifies the means which is the central underlying message in his work, “The Prince.” Machiavelli was one of the first to suggest the realism of politics and that practical methods were superior to moral actions. At the time, many people would look to religion and to the Church for guidance in state affairs. The Church’s power was great at the time because many European rulers were Catholic and would often seek to the Church for guidance or mediation. In fact, Machiavelli disliked the immense power the Church had and advocated for secularism in politics. Machiavelli believes that religion was holding people back from effectively governing states and that they needed to use their own intuition instead of their own religion and idealism. “I deem it best to stick to

“A New Argument for Morality: Machiavelli and the Ancients” by Rafael Major argues that Machiavelli relied on the rhetorical strategy of classical authors and Christian texts to formulate his moral philosophy. This usage demonstrated that The Prince was not as original or realistic as Machiavelli believed. Rafael Major is a lecturer at the University of North Texas with a focus on politics. The intended

Consequently, Machiavelli’s work emerges as a response to political philosophy that focuses on morality since he views morality and ethics as secondary to the interest of a functioning state. Thus, Machiavelli argues for a leader strive for a fearful population since such will allow the leader to rule more efficiently, while allowing the state to operate in the long run. Nevertheless, Al-Farabi’s vision of a leader clashes with Machiavelli’s vision due to his focus on morality and thus obtaining love from their

Machiavelli’s views were drastically different from other humanists at his time. He strongly promoted a secular society and felt morality was not necessary but stood in the way of a successfully governed state. He stated that people generally tended to work for their own best interests and gave little thought to the well being of the state. He distrusted citizens saying, “In time of adversity,

Niccolo Machiavelli wasn’t interested in religion but on the flip side, he strongly promoted a secular society and felt morality was not necessary but in fact stood in the way of an effectively governed principality. Machiavelli believed that the ruling

Machiavelli, a political genius, paves a path for us to understand the logic on how to build a successful Republic or bring a Republic to ruin. Machiavelli seems to be neutral on his logic, by this I mean he does not side with only good or bad intentions. He clears this path so anyone can come in and take a Republic and mold it to their liking. The principality, aristocrats, and the popular are good for the republic, but almost inescapably turn wicked. This wickedness caused the decemvirate to form. We will look into the darkness of the decemvirate and show that even when pushed by the people it ended up turning for the worse until it was ruinous for the Roman republic. Eventually the decemvirate shifted the political view back towards

"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

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

Niccolò Machiavelli thoroughly discusses the importance of religion in the formation and maintenance of political authority in his famous works, The Prince and The Discourses. In his writing on religion, he states that religion is beneficiary in the formation of political authority and political leaders must support and endorse religion in order to maintain power. However, Machiavelli also critiques corrupt religious institutions that become involved in politics and in turn, cause corruption in the citizenry and divisions among the state. In the following essay, I will examine Machiavelli’s analysis of religion and discuss the relationship between religion and politics in Machiavelli’s thought.

This brings my analysis to the subject of religion and its relationship with political authority. Machiavelli feels religion is a double edged sword where an excess of it in government is harmful but the appearance that it is part of government is not only beneficiary, but necessary. Machiavelli writes that a political leader, "…should appear, upon seeing and hearing him, to be all mercy, all faithfulness, all integrity, all religion. And there is nothing more necessary than to seem to possess this last quality." (The Prince Chapter XVIII) Machiavelli's argument centers around his assertion that having all these qualities and employing them at all times is harmful because a leader often has to resort to contradictory measures in order to