Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Machiavelli and humanism
Machiavelli's intention in the prince
Machiavelli's intention in the prince
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Machiavelli and humanism
The main idea in The Prince is how a prince should properly govern people in the best ways and the qualities a prince should posses. I think that when Machiavelli wrote this he was being serious. He gave a lot of examples to back up what he believed a prince should entail. In order to have a successful government there are three methods you should choose from. First you must destroy the government, then you must live there and finally you must keep the laws already in place in tact however subject it to the idea of new ones and change. The examples of these methods come from the Spartans and the Romans. They too had to destroy many cities in order to keep them and it worked. Machiavelli writes that “the wise man should always follow the roads that have been trodden by the great.” What he is saying is …show more content…
What he means is that a man can be feared and not hated. In order to do so one must not interfere with property or women of citizens. The most important thing of all is that he must “abstain from the property of others.” However when it comes to a prince and his army it is neccesray for him to instill fear because it will help keep the soldiers unified. In this situation he should not worry about the idea of cruelty. Machiavelli seems to drift away from humanism when he discusses Hannibal. He describes how Hannibal’s men feared him and saw him as terrible due to his cruelty, which is thought to have been inhuman cruelty. All in all Machiavelli states that being loved depends on the subject while being feared depends on the prince. A wise prince will do as he see right not based on what others say, all the while doing so by doing whatever it takes to escape being
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 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. ...
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.
Many would argue on the topic of Machiavelli and his advice for people who are looking to have power and maintain it which is mentioned in "The Prince".The argument is whether Machiavelli's ideas can be used in todays society or not.Machiavelli brings up in his writings about people in the past, and uses them as an example to show how his tactics he brings forth worked and helped rulers maintain a steady kingdom.Machiavelli talks on how a prince should be towards his enemies and friends.His advice pretty mcuh relies on not trusting just anybody.Many would agree and say that Machiavelli's ideas can definetly be used in todays society.Especially with the leaders we have today such as presidents , mayors , government etc., as well as the allies
Although Machiavelli gives numerous points on what it takes to excel as a prince, he also shows some raw examples of how he feels a prince should act in order to achieve maximum supremacy. First, when he says, "ought to hold of little account a reputation for being mean, for it is one of those vices which will enable him to govern" proves Machiavelli feels mighty adamant about his view that being mean will help a prince achieve success (332). It is absurd to imagine the meanest prince as the most successful. Also, when Machiavelli states, "our experience has been that those princes who have done great things have held good faith of little account, and have known how to circumvent the intellect of men by craft" revealing his attitude to manipulate people into fearing and respecting the prince (335). Also, Machiavelli shows that for a prince to be successful, he must not think about good faith.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
Some may take this to mean a completely different thing, such as thinking that Machiavelli 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 ruler’s 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.
Machiavelli’s advice to princes directly correlated to his view on human nature. He believed that every common man was born evil and selfish. That did not stop him, however, from saying that humans many show instances when they exhibit generosity and wholeheartedness. He does tell princes, however, not to count on the few occurrences that may happen, and he says, “It is necessary to be a prince to know thoroughly the nature of the people, and one of the populace to know the nature of princes”. He is saying is that it is imperative that a prince knows the natural human nature, that each and every human will become more self-interested than interested in the good of the state. If he is ignorant to that fact, his kingdom/area of rule will deteriorate simply because he believes in the citizens that occupy it. He does believe, however, that with the right training, a human being can be molded (with the help of the state, of course) and he says, “Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many.” Although he believes that people cannot change themselves for the good, he does think that the state and military can shape humans for the better, but there will always be
the state. When the ruler is in danger they turn against him. Machiavelli reinforces the prince's need to be feared by stating: “
Machiavelli wrote his political treatise for Lorenzo De ’Medici, in a time where Italy’s five main powers were in fierce competition with each other for territory and power, and Florence was weak and needed a successful ruler. Similarly, Although Shakespeare’s historical tragedy was set in ancient Rome, Shakespeare mirrored the political concerns of his time during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I, when England was in similar turmoil due to the lack of an heir, but also when it asserted itself vigorously as a major European power in politics, commerce, and the arts. Both texts explore deeply the importance of whether it is better to be feared or loved, and due to different perspectives brings altered outcomes. In chapter 17 of The Prince, Machiavelli reveals that cruelty is necessary for keeping people loyal and united and he concludes that it is “much safer to be feared than loved”. An example of this was Cesare Borgia who “was thought to be cruel, yet his cruelty restored order…making the region peaceful and loyal”.
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.