The role of a strong leader
The philosophy of Machiavelli in his book the Prince is simply acknowledging the incompatibility of ethics and successful governance of a state. He breaks the barrier between how we “ought” to behave and how we actually behaving. In this article , I will look into Machiavelli's key points of views on vices and ethics , I will consider and compare his ideologies on morality of the Prince with our present world, to our everyday life and to what we sees our on government's national policies and foreign policies. with these I will be able to argue on whether I agree with some of his point of view or not and I will emphasis on my reason for supporting
…show more content…
Exactly what Machiavelli called an “imaginary world” and when he said “Let us leave to one side, then, all discussion of imaginary ruler and talk about practical reality” (MFE-137) . the reality according to Machiavelli is the real nature, a natural way a man would have acted in respond to a situation without without been held back with an excuse of moral or ethics .he believed a Leader should know how to mange that nature. Machiavelli have said it all in one of his statement after he considered how people might have view the world of a ruler without any vices,” now I know everyone would agree that if a ruler could have all the good qualities I have listed and non of the bad ones, then this would an excellent state of affairs” He declared that it can only happen in an imaginary world but we are not living in such world, a “ leader have to be astute enough to avoid being thought to have those evil qualities that would make it impossible for him to retain his power”, He …show more content…
It is a good example of the middle East before and after Iraq invasion. Machiavelli did not argue that a ruler must be deadly,rather He warned rulers to be careful about being compassionate, even though he said “a ruler ought not to mind the disgrace of being called cruel” (MFE-140) but he meant the statement in a good faith, the ruler is been called cruel for being doing his job as a ruler by keeping his subjects peaceful and law be abiding. He said “it is more compassionate to impose harsh punishment on a few than, out of excessive compassion, to allow disorder to spread which lead to murder or looting ” (MFE -140), Machiavelli is actually talking about, what the motive of a good leader must be, even though He encouraged the leader to impose harsh punishments, but only if necessary to keep his subjects in order and when that is the only option left. His ideology on this issue can be relatively compare to some of the middle east leaders, these leader known their people and they known to what measure of discipline it required to rule their country. They imposed harsh punishments, yet they maintain the peace of their region, which makes their people fear them and the necessary rules and regulations were enforce. For example, after the invasion of Iraq and some other part of middle east like Libya, the situation from those region turn from bad to worst. the west now accepted the invasion was a mistake. CNN headline
Machiavelli believes that a government should be very structured, controlled, and powerful. He makes it known that the only priorities of a prince are war, the institutions, and discipline. His writings describes how it is more important for a prince to be practical than moral. This is shown where he writes, "in order to maintain the state he is often obliged to act against his promise, against charity, against humanity, and against religion" (47). In addition, Machiavelli argues that a prince may have to be cunning and deceitful in order to maintain political power. He takes the stance that it is better for the prince to be feared than loved. His view of how a government should run and his unethical conduct are both early signs of dictatorship.
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 states, “From this the prince may secure himself sufficiently if he avoids being hated or despised and keeps the people satisfied with him; this is necessary to achieve, […]” (73). It is necessary for the prince not to be hated by his subjects, and keep them satisfied to keep one’s rule. Thus Machiavelli, does not care about the standings of right and wrong, he leaves this to the people and he tries to put on the façade of giving them what they would like, but also being able to run the
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.
“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 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 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
Machiavelli's views have been misinterpreted since his book was first written, people take him in the wrong way, and are offended by what he says. Careless readers take him in a completely wrong way, such as they think that he believes that the end justifies the means, that a leader should lie to the people, and that a ruler has to rule with force. In actuality, Machiavelli means no such thing, he says that there are times when the common good outweighs the means, and the morality of a rulers actions. He also says that you cannot be loved by everyone, so try to be loved and feared at the same time, but of the two, choose to be feared. The Prince is considered to be one of the most important of nonfiction literature written in the history of mankind. It gave an accurate and truthful description of the method of governing.
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.
...ver, according to Machiavelli, these short-comings are justified since they preserve the state’s overall goal. In addition, if administrators at both local and national levels act in accordance with the state, this preserves the functionality of society as a whole. Not acting in accordance with the will of the state causes turmoil to erupt and a chink within the everyday businesses of life. Thus, it is consideration of these points that Machiavelli’s philosophy would purport that the tyrannical grip of the state ought to reign supreme in contemporary society.
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 is “a crystal-clear realist who understands the limits and uses of power.” -- Pulitzer Prize–winning author Jared Diamond (2013)
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.
Having written The Prince in 1532, it is easy to identify Machiavelli’s views on human nature as bleak and largely immoral. From this identification, one is able to relate his political advice to the modern day; however, doing so will only result in the realization that they are largely incompatible. In this essay, three of Machiavelli’s main points will be challenged according to modern day standards of politics, morality, and ethics. His sentiments regarding neutrality, public opinion, and presence, all of which are cornerstones of his philosophy, will be analyzed, ultimately revealing, with little exception, the way they do not apply to the modern standards of leadership. Machiavelli lived during a period of great moral deficiency.