Machiavelli's Assessment Of People
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.
I do not agree with his assessment of people. I do not agree because he is stereotyping men, and has prejudice against them. He is calling all men “ungrateful, fickle, feigners and dissemblers, avoiders of danger, eager for gain”, when that might only be true for some men. Also, women can fall under these traits, not only men.
Who are some other notable figures (real or fictional) that could be called “Machiavellian”? Defend your choices.
In the book, “Machiavellian” came to refer the use of deceit on politics. In our world, Vladimir Putin defines this because he wants all of the power for himself, but he makes it look like he is doing it for his country. This is Machiavellian because The Prince is all about how well rulers can lie to their people, and he is doing exactly that. …show more content…
Why? What other animal-like characteristics, do you feel are crucial for a leader?
Machiavelli claims that leaders should be like a lion and fox. He says this because he says that the lion is able to be trapped, whereas the fox cannot ward off wolves. Also, foxes can recognize traps, and a lion can frighten away wolves. A leader should also be like a tiger. A tiger is defined for its passion, power, devotion, and sensuality. Those traits are all necessary for a leader. Also, dogs are defined as faithfulness, protection, and loyalty and those are traits that would help a ruler become
I do not agree with his assessment of people. I do not agree because he is stereotyping men, and has prejudice against them. He is calling all men “ungrateful, fickle, feigners and dissemblers, avoiders of danger, eager for gain”, when that might only be true for some men. Also, women can fall under these traits, not only men.
Who are some other notable figures (real or fictional) that could be called “Machiavellian”? Defend your choices.
In the book, “Machiavellian” came to refer the use of deceit on politics. In our world, Vladimir Putin defines this because he wants all of the power for himself, but he makes it look like he is doing it for his country. This is Machiavellian because The Prince is all about how well rulers can lie to their people, and he is doing exactly that. …show more content…
Why? What other animal-like characteristics, do you feel are crucial for a leader?
Machiavelli claims that leaders should be like a lion and fox. He says this because he says that the lion is able to be trapped, whereas the fox cannot ward off wolves. Also, foxes can recognize traps, and a lion can frighten away wolves. A leader should also be like a tiger. A tiger is defined for its passion, power, devotion, and sensuality. Those traits are all necessary for a leader. Also, dogs are defined as faithfulness, protection, and loyalty and those are traits that would help a ruler become