The Prince, by Machiavelli Essay

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, a political philosopher and diplomat during the Renaissance, wrote based on his belief as result of incidents he had actually experienced. "His works often contrast two forces: luck (one's fortune) and character (one's virtues)."p.35 Machiavelli's writings on "The Qualities of the Prince" focus on advise for monarchial leaders to follow in order to keep their power. Machiavelli's main theory is that princes should retain absolute control of their territories, and they should use any means, and do what ever it takes to achieve this goal. The adjective "Machiavellian" has become despised and it is used to describe a politician who manipulates others in an opportunistic and deceptive way.

Machiavelli suggests that the only remedy for the inevitable instability within societies is extreme order and consolidated power for efficiency. As previously discussed, this may mean that principles such as justice and fairness may need to take the backseat, but all for the greater good according to Machiavelli. The desire to oppress, he argues is natural

(Machiavelli and Parks, 2009: 27). But in the context of the 16th Century, the result of political failure was so often death that the stakes were extremely high. Similarly, traditionally for realists, military power alone was the determining factor of a state’s level of power. Perhaps this contributes to the ruthless nature of Machiavelli’s political theories, for a higher possibility of achieving and maintaining political power and therefore lowering the risk of failure and even death. “Machiavelli’s career was spent observing and serving the most powerful figures of the time in probably the most opulent, turbulent and vibrant city of the renaissance” (Harris, 2010: 131, citing Skinner, 1981).

Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527) was a politician and philosopher from Florence, Italy. In his early life Machiavelli was able to witness the various ways countries dealt with affairs. When he retired, he spent his time writing The Prince (1532), a handbook for rulers. He made The Prince to explain how a leader gains and maintains power. His ideas had a very important function in the development of politics during his time.

This in turn meant that Florence was also taken over. Pope Julius II didn't want peace unless everyone accepted the Medici as their rulers. Machiavelli did not want this ( he was part of like an anti-Medici group). Machiavelli was almost executed before he was simply exiled. He then grew bored and began to write.

Niccolo Machiavelli stressed that “one ought to be both feared and loved, but as it is difficult for the two to go together, it is much safer to be feared than loved…for love is held by a chain of obligation which, men being selfish, is broken whenever it serves their purpose; but fear is maintained by a dread of punishment which never fails.” He felt that a true leader must be cunning and deceptive, winning the hearts of his people through power and influence. If he could not be liked, he could at least get by knowing he has intimidated these below him into submission. However rash or cruel this may seem, Machiavelli’s argument is not one to be countered easily.

Machiavelli is most famous for his statement that morals and ethics have absolutely no association to the process of gaining, expanding, and retaining power. In the Machiavellian concept, “Power is the end of politics, goodness thus coincides with efficiency; and inefficient means bad (Ebenstein, 2000: 286).” This film is filled to the brim with this kind of philosophy. Let’s take for example

In the political treatise The Prince, written by Niccolo Machiavelli and published in 1532 is a handbook for how an ambitious ruler devoid of moral and ethical considerations, might rise to power and retain it. It is difficult to express the specific lessons the treatise has to offer a ruler since there is such a great variety of them, and since many of them draw from little known examples of rulers from the 1500s to illustrate them. However, most anyone would agree that the one pervasive and underlying principle behind the entire treatise, which has made it so famous, is that it takes into account no moral or ethical virtues and actually argues that they are mer handicaps to both a ruler and his people. This is the most striking aspect of Machiavelli’s treatise and it is what we will examine first in this critique.

Machiavelli has long been required reading for everyone intrested in politics and power. In The Prince Niccolo M

Machiavelli’s theory is utterly individualistic in nature as it is concerned with the gaining, retaining, and spreading on one individual’s power. He sees power not as a means to achieve something greater but as a main goal.

In “The Prince,” Niccolo Machiavelli argues that the successful political leader must not make decisions based on Christian morals, use any means necessary to achieve power, and know the best methods of fighting. Machiavelli backs his stance using historical events of various political leaders, ideas of how human nature is defected, and the idea of how leaders must fight with law and force. He illustrates that leaders should reject Christian morals through Cesare Borgia. He was a great leader who rejected virtue, “his cruelty had brought order to Romagna.” Machiavelli demonstrates that princes should strike fear into their people’s eyes to earn their loyalty. This shows that if the outcome is desirable, then all methods are justified. Machiavelli

Niccolò Di Bernardo Dei Machiavelli was one of the first major philosophers to pull away from the religious side of reason. Breaking away from traditional views and values he became a modern thinker by looking at power through naturalistic and realistic senses. Unlike the views of Hobbes, Machiavelli had a contrasting view on the idea of a sovereign. Where Hobbes would explain a ruler to be fair and never unjust towards his people, Machiavelli would suggest a Prince must be ruthless, but not hated. Machiavelli also believed “A prince ought to have no other aim or thought, nor select anything else for his study, than war and its rules and discipline; for this is the sole art that belongs to him who rule.” The art of war was something Machiavelli believed a prince should always have in mind at all times. He believed that it was through war that one

Relying on the needs of the society of that time, Machiavelli comes to the conclusion that the most important task is the formation of a single Italian state (Machiavelli 15). Developing his thoughts, the author comes to the following inference: only a prince can become a leader capable of leading people and building a unified state. It is not a concrete historical personality but someone abstract, symbolic, possessing such qualities that in the aggregate are inaccessible to any living ruler. That is why Machiavelli devotes most of his research to the issue of what qualities should the prince possess to fulfill the historical task of developing a new state. The written work is constructed strictly logically and objectively. Even though the image of an ideal prince is abstract, Machiavelli argues that he should be ruthless, deceiving, and selfish.

Throughout The Prince the manipulation of human nature is advocated as a crucial component of effective leadership and consequently obtaining stability. Italy’s tumultuous political situation catalysed Machiavelli’s writing of The Prince, the advisory handbook an attempt to spur the current rulers of Florence, The Medici, to remove foreign powers from Italy and achieve sovereignty in order to maintain stability. Machiavelli’s assertion that power is obtained either by “luck or deservedly” is reflective of his 16th century Renaissance Italian context, which valued the humanist notion of individual agency and illustrates Italian society’s shift away from the Middle Ages ethos. Machiavelli’s humanist perspective underpins his argument that a ruler’s ability to