Examining a Statement From Michiavelli's The Prince Few people have not heard of the saying “The end justifies the means”. Popularized by Machiavelli, in his book “The Prince”, this saying suggests that the means in which a ruler uses to achieve a goal are justified by the end results, or in other words, when a ruler wants to achieve a goal then the desired results if achieved, justify the way he went about achieving those ends, what really matters therefore is that he has achieved a favourable goal for the state, the process he went through to achieve such a means does not matter. For example, a ruler who orders executions or who lies to the people of the country is justified so long as such actions result in the benefit of the state. This concept has over the past centuries been debated much as it sometimes seems to go head to head with many moral teachings. Most people who reject this concept do so precisely because; it at times seems to move in the opposite direction to ethical principles. Surprisingly enough, many people including I, apply and even encourage the concept of the end justifies the means in our everyday life. When, for example, we are in a class or a rally and there is a sudden outburst of noise someone may scream, shout, hiss or bang on a table, in the process creating even more noise to restore silence. We rarely criticize the use of such methods to maintain s... ... middle of paper ... ...r governments in Machiavelli’s turbulent era and it as a counsel that remains salient to this day. Bibliography Forsyth and Keens-Soper (1992) “The political classics” New York; Oxford University Press Http: // Jerusalem.indymedia.org/news/2003/08/128233 comment.php Machiavelli, N (1998) “The Prince”, (Harvey C. Mansfield, Ed) (2nd Edition) London; University of Chicago press Jeremy Bentham (1988) “The principles of morals and legislation” New York; Prometheus Books --------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] See Harvey C Mansfield’s translation of “The Prince” (1998) [2] See Harvey C Mansfield’s translation of “The Prince” (1998) [3] See Economist.com [4] See Jerusalem.indymedia.org [5] See Forsyth and Keens-Soper’s the “The political classic
The book “The Prince” was made by Nicolo Machiavelli and is still followed by politicians to this day. Nicolo Machiavelli was an Italian politician, writer, historian, philosopher and humanist in the 16th century. He wrote a book describing many aspects on how he believed the “Perfect Prince” should act like. The book was first written in 1513, but it was not published until 1532 and it was dedicated to Lorenzo di Piero de’ Medici. Many people say that Machiavelli would (in some aspect) consider Adolf Hitler a true prince. Adolf Hitler was born on April 20th, 1889 in Braunau am Inn, Austria-Hungary. When he first came to Germany he joined WW1 and that is when his love for war developed. After WW1 Hitler entered politics, and since Germany was
Gauss, Christian. Introduction. The Prince. By Niccolo Machiavelli. Trans. Luigi Ricci, revised by E.R.P. Vincent. New York: Signet Classic, 1999:7-32
At the time Nicolo Machiavelli wrote The Prince, Spain was under the rule of Ferdinand II of Aragon. Machiavelli praised Ferdinand as an example to Prince De’ Medici, due to his successful implementation of the guidelines in the book. He was a king both loved and feared, he kept a good military even in times of peace, and his prowess was exceptional. In Machiavelli’s eyes, Ferdinand’s “achievements and designs [had] always been great” (The Prince, p. 78) and he had accomplished “great and…extraordinary” deeds throughout his rule (p. 77). But for every virtue a prince has, he must have a vice. In terms of moral compass, was Ferdinand truly as great a ruler as Machiavelli depicted him to be?
Niccolo Machiavelli lived in Florence, Italy in the 1400’s. The country of Italy was divided into city-states that had their own leaders, but all pledged alliance to their king. In time in which great leaders were needed in order to help the development of a city-state and country, Machiavelli had a theory that man needed a leader to control them. In his book The Prince, he speaks of the perfect leader.
The most astounding aspect of The Prince is Machiavelli’s view that princes may indeed, be cruel and dishonest if their ultimate aim is for the good of the state. It is not only acceptable but necessary to lie, to use torture, and to walk over other states and cities. Machiavellianism is defined as “A political doctrine of Machiavelli, which denies the relevance of morality in political affairs and holds that craft and deceit are justified in pursuing and maintaining political power (Def.)” This implies that in the conquest for power, the ends justify the means. This is the basis of Machiavellianism. The priority for the power holder is to keep the security of the state regardless of the morality of the means. He accepts that these things are in and of themselves morally wrong, but he points out that the consequences of failure, the ruin of states and the destruction of cities, can be far worse. Machiavelli strongly emphasizes that princes should not hesitate to use immoral methods to achieve power, if power is necessary for security and survival.
Niccolo Machiavelli’s The Prince is a book of philosophy that suggests or condemns various methods to ascend as a prince and ways to rule newly acquired principalities. In order to convince the readers, Machiavelli integrates different forms of logical arguments, including syllogism and enthymeme.
Machiavelli's writings dealt with many issues that had not been attacked in his time, and utilized his distinct brand of political philosophy to try and change the politics and government that shaped his era. The Prince, regarded as his most controversial and successful work, spelled out a method of amelioration; whether positive or negative, virtuous or severe, a prince was to uphold the strength of a nation and a government. The next few pages will take a closer look at the life that has followed Niccolo Machiavelli, the use of historical allusions and the explicitness used in The Prince.
When Machiavelli lost his office, he desperately wanted to return to politics. He tried to gain the favor of the Medici by writing a book of what he thought were the Medici's goals and dedicating it to them. And so The Prince was written for that purpose. Unfortunately, the Medici didn't agree with what the book said, so he was out of a job. But when the public saw the book, they were outraged. The people wondered how cruel a man could be to think evil thoughts like the ones in The Prince, and this would come back to haunt him when he was alive and dead. However, if the people wanted to know what Machiavelli really stood for, they should have read his "Discourses on Livy", which explain his full political philosophy. But not enough people had and have, and so the legacy of The Prince continues to define Machiavelli to the general public.
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...
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.
In virtually every Western nation, people elect other people to play crucial roles for our countries. These crucial roles can include creating new laws and even starting a war with another country if it was necessary. In the past, though, leaders such as, Niccolo Machiavelli ran many areas. In “The Qualities of the Prince,” Machiavelli defines and defends those qualities, chief among them an awareness of the state he rules and the potential enemies that surround him. When ruling, Machiavelli warns his Prince not to misuse his power, and to have high confidence in himself. While Machiavelli’s sixteenth-century Italian Prince might have profited from such qualities, would they help a modern day politician win a presidential election in the U.S.?
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.
“The Prince”, by Niccolo Machiavelli, is a series of letters written to the current ruler of Italy, Lorenzo de’ Medici. These letters are a “how-to” guide on what to do and what not to do. He uses examples to further express his views on the subject. The main purpose was to inform the reader how to effectively rule and be an acceptable Prince. Any ruler who wishes to keep absolute control of his principality must use not only wisdom and skill, but cunning and cruelness through fear rather than love. Machiavelli writes this book as his summary of all the deeds of great men.
Machiavelli illustrates several key points in what it takes to be a "successful" Prince. In chapters 5-10, Machiavelli is giving us a true image of the coldhearted reputation he has carried throughout the years. He explains his ideas on taking over a "free" state or republic and how to conquer and rule with the peoples loyalty and respect.
Although, Machiavelli argues that an ideal ruler must be cruel, feared and unjust in order to maintain power in his paper, "The Prince", this is not necessary true. An ideal ruler must be assertive, just and filled with integrity to maintain power, prestige, and the loyalty of those he governs.