The word Machiavelli is so associated tyranny, fear, cruelty and an unwillingness to even contemplate morality that even one who is unfamiliar with his writings associates the word Machiavelli with villainy and immoral actions. In this essay however, it will be seen that Niccolò Machiavelli does indeed pay attention to the political demands of morality. On one hand, Machiavelli recognizes the appearance of benevolence in a political leader as a fundamental quality which they must possess in order to succeed in politics. On the other hand, he states that governing with genuine morality cannot guarantee a leader’s longevity in power, and indeed, may hasten their political demise. This essay will then overview sources which see Machiavelli‘s views …show more content…
When a political leader is considering whether it is better and more conducive to success for a political leader to be loved or feared, Machiavelli states that it is best to be both loved and feared. Yet if the possession of both of these qualities proves to be impossible for the leader to obtain, as is usually the case, then it is better for them to be feared than loved, but not in such a way that provokes the hatred of their citizens. Machiavelli is of this opinion because he sees humans as generally being disloyal, unappreciative, deceitful, libellous, cowardly, and greedy. If a leader is loved but not feared, then the citizens will only remain loyal to the leader while they placate their citizens, but when the leader requires their citizens to repay the generosity which they have given to the citizens, they will rebel against said leader, rendering the leader politically dead. For, according to Machiavelli, friendships and alliances which are acquired with strings attached to them, and are not forged on an honest or worthful base, will be of no use to the leader when he needs them most. Furthermore, as Machiavelli sees man as innately wicked, a citizen will be more inclined to offend a beloved leader than a feared leader, as the citizen will believe that they will …show more content…
Machiavelli cites the example of Hannibal and his colossal army which contained various sorts of men, and how it remained united both among each other and under Hannibal, as the men were fearful and respectful of him due to his cruel reputation. Machiavelli also cites the example of Scipio and how the Roman armies under his command acted disloyally against him while in Spain due to not disciplining them enough and allowing them too much freedom. Eventually, he was censured in the Roman Senate by Fabius Maximus as a weak leader who had ruined their armies with his lack of discipline and his overindulgence in mercy (Machiavelli, 1985 [1513], chap. 17: p.
Machiavelli’s advice to a prince who wanted to hold power is that they have to instill fear into the people. He believes fear is important because it restrains men, as they fear being punished. Love will never help you hold power because it attaches people to promises. Machiavelli believes that since humans are wicked, they will break these promises whenever their interests is at stake. Men will devote everything to you if you serve their interests, but as soon as you need help, they turn on you. Therefore, creating fear in them is the perfect strategy. I feel like Machiavelli is being sarcastic and did this to get attention. He knew his way of thinking was different and would get the attention of the people.
Niccolo Machiavelli believes in a strong government. The leader should be strong and feared. I believe he gets this idea from the fear of God; no one is supposed to question God because he is so feared, and in the same sense, no one should question a strong leader. Machiavelli realizes that the leader should be feared, but not hated. A hated leader will probably be killed in a rebellion. One also can not be loved. Any compassion towards your citizens will make them believe you are weak, and they will rebel. He thinks a very strong military is necessary at all times, and that powerful arms should be available and in hand. This idea is similar to that of right wing America and our friends, the National Rifle Association, who believe assault rifles are America’s pastime. The nation should always be prepared for war, and should always be searching for new lands to conquer. T...
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...
Machiavelli's realization of the penultimate import of the people is probably most significant reason his book holds so much influence on realpolitik. He writes, "it is essential for a prince to possess the good will and affections his people, otherwise he will be utterly without support in time of adversity." (Chapter 9). Clearly, Machiavelli understands the source of power within a princely republic lay with the people, whom the prince must constantly court. No other political philosopher before him had ever given much significance to those being governed. The reason that Machiavelli felt that the subjects were vital to the prince maintaining his rule was because the implications of earning the hatred and ill will of the people are dire for the political future of both the state and the prince. Of the two sources of attack the prince must fear, one is a conspiracy from within inspired by the hatred of the people (Chapter 19). Additionally, the prince must be aware that actions of his intermediaries can reflect upon himself. That is, if his army is cruel and brutish towards the people, the people will turn their hatred upon the prince, who is seen to tacitly condone the actions of the army. ...
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
Overall Machiavelli’s perspective does seem harsh and cold at times, but he proves to be an avid supporter of popular rule throughout his writings. He believes in popular rule so strongly that he states it is acceptable to use immoral means to achieve a peaceful government. If the citizens are not happy and feel their ruler disregards their wishes then the populace could become enraged and therefore, the ruler would not be executing his power of indirect popular rule. Machiavelli states that in order to achieve the necessity of popular rule, a leader will have to step outside a moral sphere and do whatever it takes to achieve popular rule. Machiavelli puts clear and strict limits on acts of immorality in leadership. The use of immorality is only acceptable in order to achieve overall good for a government. Engaging in immorality for the sake of popular rule is justified because it is done to serve the people and the state successfully.
Think of a relationship in life, one where there is a dominant person over a group of people. Is this dominant person more feared or more loved by the general population? Machiavelli states that it is better to be feared than it is to be loved when ruling over a group of people, because one of them is going to outweigh the other no matter what. This does show to be true, but not to the extreme Machiavelli describes. In modern day, for the United States, there is no ruler or president that has public shaming or public killings, that was deemed unnecessary multiple decades ago. There is a huge line between fear and respect. Respect is a balance between love and fear, and it shows to have better outcomes with more accuracy of people not rising against ‘the man.’ There must be a balance between fear and love, if there is just fear there will be hatred, if there is just love there will be chaos. Respect is the happy medium between the love and fear, and it shows to have more positive outcomes than just fearing a leader.
Machiavelli discusses assertive and bold ideas in “The Prince,” revealing his radical and courageous nature. His treatise is deceptively self-soliciting, because he disguises his extreme notions behind a veil of feigned expertise. His frank approach makes him appear confident and deserving of the utmost respect; however, he cautiously humbles himself by pouring immense flattery for the ruling prince into his work and, in doing so, assures protection for himself and his notorious ideas.
Niccolo Machiavelli stressed that “one ought to be both feared and loved, but as it is difficult for the two to go together, it is much safer to be feared than loved…for love is held by a chain of obligation which, men being selfish, is broken whenever it serves their purpose; but fear is maintained by a dread of punishment which never fails.” He felt that a true leader must be cunning and deceptive, winning the hearts of his people through power and influence. If he could not be liked, he could at least get by knowing he has intimidated these below him into submission. However rash or cruel this may seem, Machiavelli’s argument is not one to be countered easily.
Machiavelli in his famous book “The Prince” describes the necessary characteristics for a strong and successful leader. He believes that one of the most important characteristics is to rule in favor of his government and to hold power in his hands. Power is an essential aspect of Machiavelli’s theory, and a leader should do whatever it takes to keep it for the safety of his country because “the ends justifies the means.” To attain and preserve the power, a leader should rather be feared than loved by his people, but it is vital not to be hated. As he states, “anyone compelled to choose will find far greater security in being feared than in being loved.” If a leader is feared, the people are less likely to revolt, and in the end, only a threat of punishment can guarantee obedienc...
In The Prince, Machiavelli attempts to completely decouple the actions of a good ruler from personal ethics. Machiavelli begins to do this by first establishing what he believes human nature to be Machiavelli argues that numerous traits that are innate among humans. Among these, Machiavelli argues that people are generally self-interested, but that their affections for others can be won and lost. They tend to remain happy so long they avoid affliction or oppression. He also argues that they might be trustworthy in prosperous times, but they can turn selfish, deceitful, and profit-driven in adverse times. They admire honor, generosity, courage, and piety in others, but most do not pursue these virtues in their own life. Finally, Machiavelli argues that ambition is found in those who have achieved some power, but most common people are satisfied with the way things are and therefore do not yearn to improve on the status quo. People will naturally feel obligated after receiving a favor or service, and this bond is usually not broken capriciously. Nevertheless, loyalties are won and lost, and goodwil...
Machiavelli has long been required reading for everyone intrested in politics and power. In The Prince Niccolo M
It is commonly believed by both lay people and political philosophers alike that an authoritative figure is good and just so long as he or she acts in accordance with various virtues. If the actions of a ruler are tailored toward the common good of the people rather than himself, then that ruler is worthy of occupying the status of authority. By acting in accordance with social and ethical norms, the ruler is deemed worthy of respect and authority. Niccolò Machiavelli challenges our moral intuitions about moral authority in his work, the Prince, by ruthlessly defending the actions made by the state in an effort to preserve power. In particular, all actions made by the state are done in order to preserve its power, and preserving the state’s power preservers its people. In doing so, whatever actions the state exercises are justified with this end goal in mind. Although such reasoning may seem radical, it is practice more readily that most people are inclined to believe. Machiavelli's moral philosophy is deeply embedded in the present day justice administration. Due to this, Machiavelli’s political thought can serve as a reference for illustrating how today’s administrators can benefit from following the examples of other great leaders, such as on matters of global warming.
Written almost 500 years ago, Niccolo Machiavelli’s “The Prince” brings forward a new definition of virtue. Machiavelli’s definition argued against the concept brought forward by the Catholic Church. Machiavelli did not impose any thoughts of his own, rather he wrote from his experience and whatever philosophy that lead to actions which essentially produced effective outcomes in the political scene of Italy and in other countries. While Machiavelli is still criticized for his notions, the truth is that, consciously or subconsciously we are all thinking for our own benefit and going at length to achieve it. On matters of power where there is much to gain and a lot more to lose, the concept of Machiavelli’s virtue of “doing what needs to be done” applies rigorously to our modern politics and thus “The Prince” still serves as a suitable political treatise in the 21st century.
Machiavelli’s The Prince was written more than 500 years ago and it is “one of the most influential and controversial books published in Western literature.” (Article A) It was about Machiavelli’s political philosophies and the basic principles of what he believes a politician or “prince” should be. The three main ideas of the Prince were “Liberality and Stinginess”, “Cruelty and Mercy: Is It Better to Be Loved Than Feared, or the Reverse?”, and “How a Prince Should Keep Their Promises” and for the most part many of his concepts should or are already instilled in our government.