In the television series, House of Cards, a position in Congress is the basis of the show and the main character, Frank Underwood, thrives for his goals of personal achievement and working his devious plans into a profit for himself and ultimately achieving anything he wants no matter what it takes. Frank Underwood is an extremely intelligent congressman, who lives in Washington D.C. representing his home state of South Carolina, but has always put his self first. At the introduction of the show he states, “I see two different types of pain, useful pain, that helps you grow, and useless pain that does nothing but cause suffering”. These sorts of pain, but more importantly the meanings, explain a specific part of his distinctive morals that carry his actions along and show how he works with certain people or conflicts. His eminent colleagues of the U.S. legislative branch, specifically congress, perception of Frank is that he does whatever he can to make the government stronger while his intellectual perception is the contrary. While his colleagues trust him, it is hard for Frank Underwood to show a virtuous personality, enough to have full faith and trust especially regarding a huge decision he makes to murder a member of the Legislative branch. This internal situation, mirrors the philosophy (shown in the book, “The Prince”) of the political Philosopher, Niccolo Machiavelli, who has provided many with the conflicting opinion of modern times political contemplation. The scene in the last few minutes of “House of Cards: Chapter 11” exemplifies Frank’s means for consequentialism by, the fact of achieving his ultimate maxim or intended end. There is no skepticism that Frank’s actions do not follow solitarily consequentialism but ther...
... middle of paper ...
...nent person to achieve more positive good in the end. Just as Machiavelli says, in The Prince” there is no moral basis to judge the difference between legitimate and illegitimate power”, which Frank Underwood believes in also due to the way he earns his power. The contrary to this argument is the belief in deontology where, presenting the preceding “image” is considered wrong therefore it should not be even considered unless the official incurs true virtue. In Machiavellian philosophy, one should not worry about the means of what it takes to present virtuous characteristics as long as they earn the positive outcome and earn others trust. In House of Cards Frank Underwood portrays those “virtuous characteristics” but what he truly believes in is the belief of consequentialism, so that ultimately his colleagues and even the president will listen to what he wants done.
In the many sections Niccolo Machiavelli writes he constantly compares to extreme qualities, one of which is ideal, the other real. These extremes include love(ideal) vs fear, clemency(ideal) vs cruelty, generous(ideal) vs stingy, and integrity(ideal) vs lying. In comparing these different traits Machiavelli highlights the merits of opposing characteristics and (specifically)when it is effective to act in certain ways. He argues that a balance of both are vital as to prevent a prince from dipping too far into a pool of inescapable extremism. The following excerpts display the author’s contrast-centered style: “ Thus, it's much wiser to put up with the reputation of being a miser, which brings you shame without hate, than to be forced—just
“Money is the Mc-mansion in Sarasota that starts falling apart after 10 years. Power is the old stone building that stands for centuries. I cannot respect someone who doesn’t see the difference”(Chapter 2). Throughout the netflix series House of Cards, the main character, Frank Underwood, has had an obsession with power. Frank Underwood was born into poverty on a peach farm in South Carolina yet this did not stop him from having an thirst for power. He ends up running for congress in South Carolina, then later becoming House Majority WHIP, then Vice President, and finally President of the United States. Frank Underwood does this all alongside his equally ambitious and genius wife, Claire Underwood. When Frank
In The Prince, Machiavelli separates ethics from politics. His approach to politics, as outlined in The Prince, is strictly practical. Machiavelli is less concerned with what is right and just, and instead with what will lead to the fortification of the government and the sustainment of power. Machiavelli believed that a ruler should use any means necessary to obtain and sustain power. He says, “…people judge by outcome. So if a ruler wins wars and holds onto power, the means he has employed will always be judged honorable, and everyone will praise them” (Machiavelli, 55). According to Machiavelli, the ends of an action justify the means (Machiavelli, 55). His motivation for these views in The Prince was the reunification of the Italian city-states (Machiavelli, 78-79). Machiavelli wanted Italy to return to its glory of the Roman Empire (Machiavelli 78-79). Some of the beliefs of Machiavelli could be perceived as evil and cruel, but he found them necessary. Machiavelli was not concerned with making people happy. His purpose was outcome and success, and in his opinion, the only way to be successful was to be realistic. These views of Machiavelli could classify him as one of the earliest modern
Niccolò Machiavelli thoroughly discusses the importance of religion in the formation and maintenance of political authority in his famous works, The Prince and The Discourses. In his writing on religion, he states that religion is beneficiary in the formation of political authority and political leaders must support and endorse religion in order to maintain power. However, Machiavelli also critiques corrupt religious institutions that become involved in politics and in turn, cause corruption in the citizenry and divisions among the state. In the following essay, I will examine Machiavelli’s analysis of religion and discuss the relationship between religion and politics in Machiavelli’s thought.
According to Machiavelli, a prince need not actually be a virtuous individual, however, they must appear to honorable to their subjects so as to maintain the favor of the common people. On page 85, Machiavelli conveys this principle of maintaining power in expressing that it is judicious of a prince to deceive his subjects by appearing appear merciful, faithful, humane, religious, or upright in that this duplicity garners the respect of the common people and therefore strengthens his power over them. On his crusade for power, Frank often employs this exact principle. In the episode where Frank travels to South Carolina to manage the peach debacle, he is in danger of losing the favor of the people there, and thus his power secured through their votes. To salvage the situation, Frank gives a sermon about his grief after the death of his father and his faith in God that enabled him to move on. This sermon develops the illusion that Frank is virtuous in that it asserts that he shares a similar sense of grief over a loved one and a faith in God that the people of his hometown in South Carolina have. In actuality, as evidenced by his aside to the viewer, Frank is an atheist and was apathetic about the death of his father. However, this sermon accomplishes its goal in that it projects the image
As he begins to conclude, Machiavelli states that the prince: “should think about avoiding those things which make him hated and despised.” (Mach 48) Although these lack any withstanding moral values, they are effective in the sense that they better serve their purpose. Machiavelli was seeking to display a way to hold political power by any means possible not a utopian state. This may mean malicious acts, imprisonment, and torture, or it may mean the utilization of power to achieve a common good. Machiavelli doesn’t elaborate on this. He concentrates on a realistic approach towards government, as he remains concerned with the establishment and protection of power.
After five hundred years, Niccolo Machiavelli the man has ceased to exist. In his place is merely an entity, one that is human, but also something that is far above one. The debate over his political ideologies and theories has elevated him to a mythical status summed up in one word: Machiavelli. His family name has evolved into an adjective in the English language in its various forms. Writers and pundit’s bandy about this new adjective in such ways as, “He is a Machiavelli,” “They are Machiavelli’s,” “This is suitable for a Machiavelli.” These phrases are almost always the words of a person that understands more about Niccolo’s reputation than the man himself. Forgotten is that Machiavelli is not an adequate example of the ruler he is credited with describing; a more accurate statement would be to call someone a “Borgia” or a “Valentino.” Most of the time they are grossly mistaken in their references. All these words accomplish is to add to the legend, and the misinterpretation, of the true nature of Niccolo Machiavelli.
Machiavelli believed that, ethics and morality were considered in other categories than those generally known. He does not deny the existence of, but did not see how they can be useful in its traditional sense as in politics and in the government of the people. According to Machiavelli, a man is by nature a political angry and fearful. Machiavelli had no high opinion of the people. It is assumed that a person is forced to be good and can get into the number of positive features, such as prudence and courage. The prince can only proceed gently and with love, because that would undermine the naivety of his rule, and hence and the well-being of the state. He thought that, the Lord must act morally as far as possible, immorally to the extent to
Machiavelli’s The Prince In 1515, Niccolo Machiavelli manifested the book, later referred to as The Prince, in Florence, Italy. The book did not have a name until five years after his death when it was published. The intent of Machiavelli in writing The Prince was to get the attention of Lorenzo de Medici. The book intends to give its audience the knowledge on how to obtain power and also how to maintain power.
Niccoló Machiavelli claims in “The Qualities of the Prince” that a prince must have certain qualities that will allow him to seize and maintain his power as a ruler. Machiavelli asserts that these qualities will guarantee the ruler to be able to govern his subjects effectively. According to him, a prince must study the art of war, must understand generosity and to what extent he must be generous to be effective, must choose to either be loved or feared, and be able to keep his word to his citizens according to the situation. These qualities can still apply in today’s politics, and will be useful for a modern time politician as long as they are used carefully.
In 1532 The Prince, written by Niccolo Machiavelli was published in Florence. From there, even though it was put on the Popes Index librorum prohibitorum, 1it managed to reach a wide swath of the European population and influence countless heads of state. Even though not officially translated into English until the 1640's, many of the people around the Tudors at the time, and even the husband of Queen Mary I, King Phillip II, were in some way exposed to the absolutist ruling style of Machiavelli. With people like Bishop Stephen Gardiner, Thomas Cromwell and other close advisors to the King/ Queen, The Influence of The Prince reached the British Isles long before it was ever translated into English.
His idea of a prince necessity to be a successful leader must be able to demonstrate ‘virtues’ of manipulation and overcome fortune to gain advantage during war (Deagon, 2017). He believed for one to achieve power, there must be ‘virtu’ and ‘fortuna’. ‘Virtu’ is a form of manliness and courage and ‘fortuna’ is the combination of will and fate. By having the value of virtu, fortune can be handled. In addition, Machiavelli advocated it is necessary to do evil in order to obtain power.
Niccoló Machiavelli strongly believed that a balance between cruelty and mercy was needed and fear can be induced by cruelty. Machiavelli stated “a wise Prince then is not troubled about a reproach for cruelty by which he
In the sixteenth century, there were three sets of socioeconomic statuses that one could acquire or be a part of, the clergy, the nobility, and the peasantry. The divide between these three generalized classes was far more complicated in reality that it seems, as socioeconomic classes consist of multiple branches. Nonetheless, it all essentially came down to two undeniable factions, the oppressors and the oppressed. Niccolo Machiavelli, being a mixture of the two due to his living situation while writing the book, gained a middle-ground which allowed him to achieve omnipotent intelligence that so many rulers normally lack, first hand experience of what it like to live both lives, one as a peasant and the other as a nobleman. This omnipotent
Machiavelli’s ethical paradigm can be summarized very well in the phrase, “the end justifies the means, if the end is good” . As a political philosopher, by good, Machiavelli refers to the good of the state, the ultimate Common Good, whether carried out by a Prince or Republic. He also implies that it is right for statesmen to accomplish good for the state, and that it is wrong not to do so. Here, he conflicts with Christian morality, stating that, although a Prince can be moral, immorality is far more effective in statesmanship, and that moral Princes are ultimately taken advantage of by immoral Princes: This sentiment is echoed when Machiavelli states, “The…man who wants to act virtuously…comes to grief among so many who are not virtuous,”