The Prince As A Modern Polititcal Treatise

While the moral codes of Humanism and Catholicism consider betrayal to be wrong, from an amoral perspective, betrayal in political contexts is unavoidable and comes with its own set of benefits. This is Machiavelli’s view in his 1513 work The Prince. In the text, he details the complexities of gaining and maintaining political power to Italian statesman Lorenzo de’ Medici, from whom he hopes to regain a political position after power shifts in the Florentine republic. Machiavelli argues that people, particularly political leaders, should have flexible moral codes so that they can bend them when necessary. To him, whether actions are morally “bad” or “good” is irrelevant—in gaining power, what really matters is whether actions are useful or not useful.

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 wrote The Prince in 16th-century. His methods of acquiring and maintaining rule over people are not relevant in today’s modern American society. There are many principles that are still true in politics today, but the methods of ruling can no longer be used in American society today.

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

Socrates and Niccolo Machiavelli were both incredibly influential in the development of Western philosophical thought, specifically in relation to ethics in politics. Machiavelli’s text The Prince, written during a period of political turmoil in Italy, outlines the necessary steps a prince must take to obtain both power and authority. Plato’s The Last Days of Socrates assesses the moral and ethical guidelines an ideal leader should possess through the beliefs and teachings of Socrates. While both texts had similar objectives, their opinions were quite contradictory. Socrates would have found Machiavelli’s concept of the “Prince”, and the government he creates to be both unethical and fundamentally flawed. Socrates places higher value on the maintenance and creation of justice, while Machiavelli stresses the process of obtaining and preserving power, unethical or not. Due to their differences in their ideas of virtue, knowledge, and justice it can be concluded that Socrates would not be supportive of the government in which The Prince proposes.

Maintaining control over a position and government in the United States still functions the same as 16th century Italy on a broad basis. In both governments to maintain control the leader primary discipline must be warfare, expect today instead of fighting with other countries physically we fight monetarily and through technological advancement. Politicians fight amongst each other for campaign donations, policy, and funding for their districts. The outline Machiavelli still applies in many way because those who maintain their positions generally have higher donations and have consistently appeased their districts for reelection. On a global scale we have physically seen aspects of The Prince taken place throughout history after its publication such as with the former Soviet Union or the former British Empire being able to control its state with many different cultures and languages by colonizing and have a strong military. Politicians must always being aware of their political surroundings and ready to attack or defend at a moment’s notice which is no different than a prince in 16th century

“It is much safer to be feared than loved.” This quotation was just a specimen of the harsh and very practical political annotation of the legendary historian, Niccolò Machiavelli – philosopher, patriot, diplomat, advisor and statesman. He was born as the son of a poor lawyer in 1498, but he never let boundaries restrict him. He still received an excellent humanist education from the University of Florence and was soon after appointed as the Second Chancellor of the Republic of Florence.2 His political importance to Florence would soon give him the opportunity to write what is disputed as one of the most significant works in history, The Prince.

The people are constrained by rules and laws, all coexisting for the effective ongoing function of a proper Republic. This does not suggest, however, that the rule by kings or aristocrats is desired, as Machiavelli makes it clear early on that he prefers a mix of the three regimes (monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy). In Discourses he writes, “It is … marvelous to consider the greatness Rome reached when she freed herself from her kings. The reason is easy to understand, for it is the common good and not private gain that makes cities great.” (II-II). Here, Machiavelli reminds his readers that a truly free republic is one that is dedicated to shared civic values and the good of all the people, not simply the wealthy. This doesn’t mean, however, that a healthy republic is to be ruled by civilians; it simply means that it cannot function ideally without them. A coexistence of all three regimes, each having checks and balances on the other, made Rome the distinguished republic that it was. Because all men are inherently self-interested and would never do anything good unless coerced to, Machiavelli believed that laws were critical for control (The Prince, I-XVII). A republic requires tough laws, as a sort of artificial necessity, to establish civic individuals who were truly

Plato and Machiavelli are both theorists that focus on the concept of well-being in regards to the state. However, although their main concentration is the same – the well-being of the state – they vastly differ when it comes to what their stand on morality is, focusing on separate virtues within their books, Republic and The Prince respectively. A virtue is defined as a conformity to a standard of right: morality” or a “particular moral excellence” (Virtue). Plato centres around virtues such as wisdom, courage, temperance and justice whereas, Machiavelli focuses on boldness, adaptation, prudence and foresight. In this paper I will focus on the differences and similarities between Plato and Machiavelli’s accounts of virtue, what virtues each finds valuable for political life and how they contribute to the health of the state. I will also touch on how the theorists’ accounts of virtue deviate from one another and what that tells us about the approaches each takes in regards to the political life.

For most contemporary readers, Niccolò Machiavelli is a name synonymous with deceit, cunning, and manipulation, a reputation which stems almost entirely from his authorship of one of the central works of modern political philosophy: The Prince. Given this image, it is incredibly ironic that the Italian word virtù and its derivatives appear no less than seventy-two times throughout the work. While the translator goes to great lengths to adapt this versatile word to the context of the situation, it is nevertheless clear that virtù is closely related to its English cognate virtue. This, along with the political nature of Machiavelli’s work, shapes the discourse about the nature of princedoms into one in which the author explores the more

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 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

First let us discuss the ideas of Niccolo Machiavelli in is piece “The Prince”. Machiavelli has a very independent controversial way of thinking and portraying his ideal form of governance in this text. The ideal and most effective from of governance for him is not in that of a republic but instead he insists in an autocratic regime. He argues that republics and other forms of government are too weak because of the corruptness of human nature. This book is written as a guide on how a prince should run his state or nation based on how and when he would come into this power. One of his main concerns in which he has been criticized for is his disregard to follow moral values so as to properly run the state, as well as

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