In the fourth paragraph, under the subtitle The Prince, Vincent Barnett states that Machiavelli refers to all men as “ungrateful, fickle, liars, and deceivers.” He also states that men were not loyal, but greedy and self absorbed. Machiavelli also wanted the “prince” to make himself feared, but not hated.…
Niccolo Machiavelli, arguably the finest political theorist of his time, wrote in his famous work “The Prince” that a ruler use any methods available to him to maintain stability, for even though some methods might seem abusive and purely attempts toward staying in power, in reality they benefit the people because the ruler manages to maintain stability which is all the people could ask for. If another country is about to attack yours and your people are at risk, would you even hesitate in bribing the other country's ruler or diplomat to prevent escalation? True, the ethics are questionable, but being that the ends are so positive, it would be futile to look at it otherwise. Plain and simple, the means are irrelevant if the ends are positive enough to trump them. Machiavelli defends these conclusions using both explicit and implicit language.…
Machiavelli asserts, “... of men generally; they are ungrateful, fickle, feigners and dissemblers, avoiders of danger, eager for gain” and that men are “treacherous and would not keep their promises to you.” Do you agree with his assessment of people? Explain.…
In Machiavelli’s most famous book, he writes to prospective “new princes” on how to be as successful as possible, without taking into account the morality of any of the actions. For example, in chapter 15, he writes that “it is necessary for a prince, if he wishes to maintain himself, to learn to be able to not be good, and to use it and not use it according to necessity” (Machiavelli 93). In addition, he also believed that men were generally to receive misfortune as they “[were generally] ungrateful, fickle, hypocrites, and dissemblers, evaders of danger, lovers of gain” (Machiavelli 101). He believed that during good times, man would likely seek to be friends with fellow neighbors but that in times of adversity, they would only seek out their own well being and be selfless even if one had previously given them a favor. For this reason, he supports the fact that a prince is better off being feared than loved showing pessimism in the nature of humans. He writes, “Love endures by a bond which men, being scoundrels, may break whenever it serves their advantage to do so; but fear is supported by the dread of pain, which is ever present” (Machiavelli 106). Machiavelli supported keeping people in fear to better control them.…
Introduction: Many people who have read The Prince by Niccoló Machiavelli were appalled by Machiavelli’s fierce and authorative tone he used to assert his ideas, especially his concept of how the ends justify the means, which slowly made people begin to criticize him and his book as immoral, wicked, and evil. For this reason, Machiavelli began to be insulted as a ruthless and evil person, or in the adopted term, a Machiavellian. Machiavelli didn’t wish to care for morals or spiritual integrity; however, he didn’t arrange to establish the approach to wickedness. As a matter of fact, he argues that the concept the ends justify the means are meant to be followed, but only when necessary commands for it to happen.…
Human nature has been the discussion of many of philosophical works. There are some who believe human beings are inherently bad, individualistic and greedy. There are those who believe humans are inherently good and seek the best possible outcomes for society as a whole. Upon reading Niccolò Machiavelli’s The Prince, Karl Marx’s The Communist Manifesto, and John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government the audience may begin to understand how those ideas of human nature can have an effect on an individual’s political ideology. Machiavelli, Marx, and Locke all expressed in their works how they viewed human nature and gave historical background and evidence of how their opinions of human nature directly affected their political ideology and how…
Machiavelli spoke of a balance between good and evil. "In actual fact, a prince may not have all of the admirable qualities listed, but it is necessary that he should seem to have them. Indeed I will venture to say that when you have them and exercise them all of the time, they are harmful to you; when you just seem to have them, they are useful. It is good to appear merciful, truthful, humane, sincere, and religious; it is good to be so in reality. But you must keep your mind so disposed that, in…
He debates virtue of mercy versus virtue of cruelty. He concludes that virtue of cruelty is better than the virtue of mercy and bases this argument on what helps the people. He states that it is better to be feared than loved, but only if the prince can inspire fear in such a way that he avoids hatred. “It is much safer to be feared than loved...That prince who has founded himself entirely on their words, stripped of their preparation, is ruined; for friendships that are acquired at a price and not with greatness and nobility of spirit are bought, but they are not owned and when time comes they cannot be spent. And men have less hesitation to offend one who makes himself loved than one who makes himself feared; for love is held by a chain of obligation, which, because men are wicked, is broken at every opportunity of their own utility, but fear is held by dread of punishment that never forsakes you.” (Machiavelli, 66) This is important because it justifies why a prince must be feared rather than loved. A prince must not rely purely on man’s words, for they are never true. According to Machiavelli, men are wicked and they will break their word at every opportunity they get. Love is held by commitment which cannot be depended on because it is not trustworthy. One might say and act as though they are committed, however, they may be thinking otherwise and because men are evil, they will…
According to Hobbes, causing harm without a cause creates an environment where a certain type of war thrives: cruelty (Hobbes 1996, 101)…
Both St. Augustine and Machiavelli believed that in order to understand the true nature of society you must see men for what they truly were. Augustine and Machiavelli are similar in their pessimistic views toward human nature, looking at human self-love and self-interest and believed it to be full of evil, cruelty, betrayal, violence and tied that relationship into the creation of war. For both philosophers a good society is actually something that for almost all men is an unreachable attribute that can only be written about and not actually fully experienced in my view. For Augustine I feel it is a truly heavenly earth where all men are divine and are as close to the city of Heaven as you can be on earth. For Machiavelli it is a state of complete acceptance of each man’s role and how that role fits into society like a puzzle piece. In order to examine each philosopher’s view further, we must break their thoughts into three separate categories which are: human nature, political authority, and religious beliefs. This essay will take an in-depth look at both St. Augustine and Machiavelli, compare and contrast their views, and provide evidence that on some level the two thinkers were very similar in their ideology.…
Machiavelli and Aristotle's writings on man, The Prince and Nichomachean Ethics respectively, and the management thereof contain divergent ideas of how man should act and reason. They have a similar view of the end: greatness, but the means which the two philosophers describe are distinctly different. Machiavelli writes about man as mainly concerned with power and self-assertion, while Aristotle desires a society of individuals, of honorable men. An excess of the power seeking Machiavellians and an undeniable scarcity of genuine individuals have created a contemporary society so out of touch with its own humanity that it desperately needs an application of Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics.…
to offer to the well being of the state, Machiavelli was quick to mock human…
A good leader is one who can stand up against the norm and take risks to uphold their state. According to Machiavelli, in his book The Prince, this includes taking actions that are not favored by the majority. Though Machiavelli was born on May 3rd, 1469 and only wrote his book in 1513, his ideas were so significant that they apply even to contemporary leaders. Angela Merkel, the chancellor of Germany, is facing situations that can either prove her strength as a leader or set the European Union on a road to destruction. On top of dealing with the major Greek debt crisis, she has been faced with the task of deciding how to handle the Syrian refugees. Using the examples and analysis provided by Machiavelli, Merkel’s best plan would be to pressure…
Machiavelli answers his own question through his ideas of what makes a successful ruler. He argues that a prince is much safer being feared than loved. Machiavelli says “...for love is preserved by the link of obligation which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage; but fear preserves you by a dread of punishment which never fails." (Machiavelli 99). He says that being loved creates opportunity for being taken advantage of and being feared doesn't fail. Bringing fear to his people with cruelty would make them united and loyal. Most people who are fearful of any authority fear punishment, so they are more inclined to not cross the line of disrespect. Without a doubt, being loved is more desired from the people and has a greater value compared to being feared, even though the perks of being feared can make a leader successful.…
Niccolò Machiavelli (1469 –1527) was an Italian historian, politician and philosopher based in Florence during the Renaissance. He was a founder of modern political science, and more specifically, political ethics. He wrote his masterpiece, The Prince, which is sometimes claimed to be one of the first works of modern political philosophy in which the effective truth is taken to be more important than any abstract ideal.…