Was Machiavelli's Theory Good Or Bad?

He says that force is necessary when the law fails. A prince can use these interchangeable traits to deceive people and break promises.

Machiavelli tackles the question “is it better to be loved or feared by people?”. Giving his insight on the matter, it is clear to see the benefits and downside to both. Every prince should desire to be perceived as a kind ruler rather than cruel one. However, he must avoid misusing or overusing his compassion. Cesare Borgia was considered cruel, yet his oppressiveness ended up resulting in peace and unity in Romagna (Machiavelli,trans; W. K. Marriott). Meanwhile on the other hand of mercifulness, when the Florentines tried to avoid cruelty, this allowed Pistoia to be destroyed (Machiavelli,trans; W. K. Marriott). Machiavelli argues once a

One of the three major themes of the Prince would be Hatred. For a prince to remain in power he would have to avoid the hatred of all the people. It wasn’t necessary for a prince to be loved by his people but it’s even better that he is feared by his people, but in fact if a prince is feared by his people it could be the cause of his downfall.

Machiavelli thinks it is better for the prince to be feared than loved. For a prince who is loved will be compassionate towards others, mainly his soldiers. When danger is at bay his men will hold him in the highest regard. Should an attack occur they will very quickly turn their backs on him. He may be viewed as weak and untrustworthy, thus easier to overtake. As he explains, “And men are less hesitant about harming someone who makes himself loved than one who makes himself feared because love is held together by a chain of obligation which, since men are a sorry lot, is broken on every occasion in which their own self-interest is concerned: but fear is held together by dread of punishment which will never abandon you” (p.46). If he is loved rather than hated he can never keep an army of soldiers under his command. However, he must not be so feared to the point he is hated to do so he must not take what does not belong to him, and keep his hands off the wives of his subjects.

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

If a leader must choose to be feared or loved what should they choose? On one hand being feared gives that leader control over society because the people fear punishment from the leader. Feared leaders usually have a strong military force and presence. On the other hand if a leader is loved they will have control over the people because society agrees because they listen to the society's ideas. A loved leader will be forgiven by the people when they make mistakes they will also have more trust from the people. Being loved as a leader is much better than being feared.

A ruler needs to maintain a positive public image and please as many of the population as possible. It is impossible to please everyone whether you are an effective or ineffective ruler, but maintaining the support of the majority of the masses is of paramount concern in being a successful leader.

A prince must learn not to be limited to morality when unavoidable; a leader has to be able to use lies, force and deception if required in the world. Whether it is better to be feared or loved clearly addresses the reason for this.

In The Prince, there is an analogy that talks about the fox and the lion. It says, “A prince, therefore, being compelled knowingly to adopt the beast, ought to choose the fox and the lion; because the lion cannot defend himself against snares and the fox cannot defend himself against wolves. Therefore, it is necessary to be a fox to discover the snares and a lion to terrify the wolves.” (Page 84-85) The fox is a symbol of the integrity of a ruler. A ruler who is honest, righteous, and faithful can be strong, but will have a downfall. They won’t be able to hold their status once their reasoning is not helpful. The downfall of the fox is the wolves. The lion is a symbol for a ruler using force, but this method will also have downfalls. The downfalls of the lion are the snares and traps. This analogy puts into play the idea that integrity and force oppose each other. One will always be the downfall of the other. In order for a prince to keep power, he must use both integrity and force.

Niccolo Machiavelli spent adequate time studying past rulers, observing how their strategies either lead to their success or ruin. He later wrote, The Prince, in which he outlined the strategies a prince should follow in order to acquire and maintain power. Machiavelli gifted Lorenzo de Medici his book, as it was customary to present the prince with your most prized possession. However, the book was not well received, as it was perceived to go against the Catholic Church. Today, however, The Prince has been deemed a classic and its teachings are applicable to the business world. By adhering Machiavelli’s teachings many companies have become successful. For example, some of Michael Kors’ business practices reflect principles outlined in The

society and the goal of The Prince is to instruct a prince, or ruler, on how to maintain his state.

Although he may be considered cold hearted and unjust, I believe that in many roles of political leadership, a person will have to be cold in many areas of ruling. Machiavelli is a leader who understands the human mind. With this knowledge he has, he influences the people. If the people are loyal to their leader they will prosper and benefit mutually. If the city so does the leader and he gains more power. So to me it seems like a cycle of you get what you want, and I get what I want. Machiavelli understood the place of a prince and the place of his subjects and citizens. He knows what leadership consist of and how to obtain true power. He also knows that most common people do not, and they should be ruled over for their own good. Maybe I'm being too easy and optimistic about Machiavelli, but I do believe he gives sound advice based on his knowledge of how people work and think. Pain and evil are real and necessary to in order to rule affectively. Machiavelli states that laying down a solid foundation is important in building a successful future for the city/state. By doing evil and causing pain, it might be hurtful at the time, but in the long run, a good prince will be setting up a solid foundation for future

There is one name that is synonyms with diabolical, cunning, scheming and unscrupulous politics, Machiavelli. Niccolo Machiavelli was a brilliant intellect of the Italian Renaissance. He was a Diplomat and Soldier contrasted with a historian, poet, and dramatist, which are reflected in his writing. He was a patriotic person that wanted secure Italy, especially Florence, against all enemies and he understood that many decisions need to make that will produce the best results. Born to Florentine nobility in 1400; His early career was as a conducting diplomatic mission for Florence to other Italian cities, France, and Germany. As a diplomat and soldiers, he was privy to may atrocities and actions that had both positive and negative results depending on the situation and how they were implemented. Niccolo Machiavelli aimed The Prince to show how to build up a principality capable of expelling foreign interest and restoring the independence of Italy. It was a vivid portrayal of politics in that day and age. It was originally released in 1513 but was not widely published and distributed until 1532, five years after Niccolo Machiavelli death. It has both been praised and criticized at various points in history on the pros and cons of this thesis of political tactics. William Shakespeare even used Machiavel to emphasize in Henry VI, how evil GLOUCESTER was:

It is fundamentally important to preface the discussion hosted in this essay by addressing ourselves to the most mundane question-why consider Machiavelli in the context of philosophy, least of all, political philosophy? This question dominates any philosophical inquiries of the Machiavelli’s political ideologies. Put differently, do the contributions by Niccolò Machiavelli to the various salient discourses in the Western thought, most notably political theory, meet the requisite standard models of academic philosophy? Machiavelli essentially seems not to consider himself a philosopher. In fact, he overtly disapproved of any philosophical inquiries into his works. In addition, his credentials do not qualify him to be properly admitted within the realm of philosophy (NeDermAN, 2002).

A ruler who is feared, on the other hand, will not be able to genuinely communicate with the general public. The people just comply with the rules and laws set up out of fear, not on account that they are beneficial to society. Individuals would then be able to feel that they are not a piece of the nation and its authority, since they are