1. In The Prince, by Machiavelli, he describes how it is expected that a prince with integrity is the best kind, however, his experience has taught him that this is not necessarily the case. A prince is usually expected to be an honorable, honest and a man who sticks to his word. However, it is not always good for a prince to do so and there are many reasons to proves this point. Honesty and righteousness are not the only two important aspects, a prince should not be too innocent or gullible so people are not able to take advantage of him. A prince should also be able to express his opinions with force and lenience while addressing his subjects. Machiavelli emphasizes that there is two super of qualities needed in princes, the fox, and the …show more content…
In The Prince by Machiavelli, he raises and touches on some really important topics which really got me thinking. For example, when he is talking about how a prince should deal with an issue he says, “Therefore it is necessary for a prince to understand how to avail himself of the beast and the man. I really liked this saying of his as it very relevant for not only a prince but everyone. Some people only know how to act like a man, with politeness and patience, while others don't understand this concept and are always the beast. This is very interesting because I have learned that it’s true sometimes people don't understand things the nicer way, so you have to adopt the other option. Machiavelli is raising a good point as he says “understand how to avail himself of the beast and the man”, this explains how important it’s to find a balance between the two different conceptions. In addition, when Machiavelli is talking about why his ideas hold true, and he says, “... because [men] are bad, and will not keep faith with you, you too are not bound to observe it with them.” I believe that this statement couldn't be true, but then I saw why it makes sense and also that it exists today. I realized what he was saying wasn’t just true back when The Prince was written, but can also been seen in society today. There are a lot of people that pretend to be good, and that doesn't mean there aren't genuinely good people however, that doesn't negate the fact that there is a strong …show more content…
If Machiavelli and Socrates were to meet, I do not think they would get along because they would have complete opposing views. They believe in two different concepts which don't work well together. Machiavelli believes that you should go to any extent to complete your wish and achieve your goals. On the other hand, Socrates believes in being righteous and following you inner goodness no matter what you do. Socrates always sees the good and all the good qualities of a human being opposed to Machiavelli’s very deficient view of human nature. Socrates would not like that opinion and would question Machiavelli about why he think this way about human nature in this case. Machiavelli would try to defend his opinion by telling Socrates that he was merely just talking about human nature on the basis of his past experiences not trying to advocate against it. Socrates would be heavily saddened that so many people followed Machiavelli’s advice or were the inspiration for it. For example, Machiavelli discussed Pope Alexander VI’s great tactics and how one of the keys to his success was his ability to deceive during his reign. I do not think that Socrates would be able to believe that people have now been corrupted into pretending that they are someone they actually are not. He would frown and constantly disagree upon Machiavelli’s “the ends justify the means” outlook on life. Machiavelli would tell Socrates that in life you must change your attitude and perception in order to get
Niccolò Machiavelli was a man who lived during the fourteen and fifteen hundreds in Florence, Italy, and spent part of his life imprisoned after the Medici princes returned to power. He believed that he should express his feelings on how a prince should be through writing and became the author of “The Qualities of a Prince.” In his essay, he discusses many points on how a prince should act based on military matters, reputation, giving back to the people, punishment, and keeping promises. When writing his essay, he follows his points with examples to back up his beliefs. In summary, Machiavelli’s “The Qualities of a Prince,” provides us with what actions and behaviors that a prince should have in order to maintain power and respect.
The bravery and strength of the lion will not be enough to empower the ruler to escape the snares set by his enemies for and the slyness of the fox is also needed. “The lion cannot protect himself from traps, and the fox cannot defend himself from wolves. One must therefore be a fox to recognize traps, and a lion to frighten wolves.” (The Prince) It is not possible for the citizens to love and fear a prince, but being feared is much safer than being loved.“Since love and fear can hardly exist together, if we must choose between them, it is far safer to be feared than loved” (The Prince) Everything a prince says must be filled with these five qualities: being merciful,being trustworthy, religious,kind, honest. Machiavelli defines virtues as qualities that are praised by others, such as generosity, compassion, and piety. He argues that a prince should always try to appear virtuous, but it is more important for the prince to be practical than it is for him to be morally good. The government that is built of this foundation it
Machiavelli sees human nature as a negative, whereas Pico sees human nature as a positive aspect in life. Each of the two has done works in their time of life that expressed their ideas of the man and their actions. One of Machiavelli works includes The Prince and one of Pico’s works in On the Dignity of Man. Each one of these works will be discussed further. As for an overview of the two men, they both have views that are completely opposite. One believes that man is selfish, greedy, fraudulent and etc. the other believes that man makes mistakes and things happen for a reason. Do you believe that man can be deceitful but still loving and caring? Or do you believe that man is deceitful and that’s just what they do to get ahead of the game? Some may say they believe in living a life of freedom, and there is no right or wrong way to live, but why wouldn’t there be a right or wrong way? Let’s look further into examples of each of these beliefs.
On the other hand, some people may say that Machiavelli's ideas were for people in the past time and cannot be used in todays society.According to text 2 one of Machiavelli's quotes came up about being feared more than loved and the response to that was " A leader must build his relationship with the people upon mutual respect, more than any other thing. It is not fear or
Machiavelli’s views were drastically different from other humanists at his time. He strongly promoted a secular society and felt morality was not necessary but stood in the way of a successfully governed state. He stated that people generally tended to work for their own best interests and gave little thought to the well being of the state. He distrusted citizens saying, “In time of adversity, when a state is in need of its citizens, there are few to be found.” In his writings in The Prince, he constantly questioned the citizens’ loyalty and warned for the leaders to be wary in trusting citizens. His radical and distrusting thoughts on human nature were derived out of concern for Italy’s then unstable government. Machiavelli also had a s...
... to the times of kings and princess, however it must be noted that the underlying human emotions and their motivations can only be dealt with decisiveness and deep plotting. The concepts discussed are applicable to all leaders and politicians holding offices. Bottom line is, some things never changes. Even though a lot has changed, principles of Machiavelli’s Prince are adapted and used widely yet secretly in a complex world of growth and prosperity with a greater demography and geography.
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
Throughout The Prince Machiavelli gives definite instructions as to how a prince should and should not behave which often conforms to the traditional image of men as being tough
Additionally, The Prince states that secular forms of government are more realistic than pious ones because a pious government would be bound by morals. In the Prince, Machiavelli tries to convey that the end justifies the means, which means any thing goes. He claims that it would be ideal for a prince to possess all the qualities that are deemed good by other men, but states that no leader can accomplish that. He also states that the security of the state should be the prince’s first priority and it must be protected by any means necessary. Although, this can be true in certain cases, Machiavelli uses it as an excuse to use evil and cruel tactics.
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
9. Machiavelli says the prince only has to seem good, not be good. Socrates insists that seeming is bad, being is good. Is it better to remain in the cave with Machiavelli, or see the light with Socrates? Write three pages for Machiavelli and against Socrates, write another three pages against Machiavelli and for Socrates.
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.
Since the beginning of time, the concepts of good and evil have existed and human beings have struggled to find the balance between them. Evil is an abstracted word but can best be defined as something that contradicts morality. However, morals and the concept of what is right differs throughout time periods, societies, and individuals. According to Machiavelli, deception and immorality are justified in situations where the positives of the final outcome outweigh the negative acts that lead to it. In contrast, Socrates was a proprietor of justice and serenity in a society. Nevertheless, both Machiavelli and Socrates strove to please the public. While their ethics would vary, Machiavelli and Socrates would agree that it can be prudent
Niccolo Machiavelli was a political philosopher from Florence, Italy. The period that Machiavelli lived in was the "rebirth" of art in Italy and rediscovery of ancient philosophy, literature and science. He wrote The Prince, in which he discusses the proper way of living as a prince. His ideas, which were not viewed as beneficial at the time, were incredibly cynical and took time for the rest of the population to really catch onto the ideas. Machiavelli’s view of human nature was that humans are born evil, and while they can show good traits, and the common man is not to be trusted. Unlike Confucius, Machiavelli believes that human nature cannot be changed, and unlike Plato, where Plato believes in humans as social beings. Each respected view
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.