Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Machiavelli ideas about government
Machiavelli ideas about government
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Machiavelli ideas about government
Team C believes that Machiavelli’s principal idea is demonstrated in politics, “the ends justify the means”. If a leader is vicious and effective it is better than being virtuous and ineffective. Machiavelli, however did not endorse vicious behavior in general, just whatever would not “allow disorders to arise”. To remain in power, a leader must avoid the hatred of his people. It is not necessary for a leader to be loved; in fact, it is often better for him to be feared. The author states, “It is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be lacking” (p. 103). Machiavelli warns leaders against doing things that might result in hatred, such as the confiscation of property. Being hated, however, can result the downfall of a prince. Machiavelli, asserts that a number of traits are inherent in human nature. People are generally self-interested, ungrateful, fickle, liars who shun danger; although their affection for others can be won and …show more content…
This is apparent throughout the study because in order to be a good prince, a man must obtain certain types of qualities and characteristics. Consequently, if exhibited properly they will bring him security and prosperity among the state. Throughout a comprehensive analysis of the case, it is obvious that the skills learned in order to become a good prince are adapted from the norms of elders and other successful princes. An example is when discussing in the case on how to ,“strive for mastery” (p. 104). In the study Machiavelli speaks on how Achilles, known for being one of the mightiest Greeks who fought in the Trojan War, was raised on norms and discipline. Due to Achilles bold characteristics and fame, other princes wanted to obtain the same qualities of success and survival. In turn, this was paramount to the princes and human nature did not see much change back
To Machiavelli, people are children that need order. They are childlike, not in their innocence, but in their passions. They are ungrateful, greedy, deceptive, and fickle. However, they are also rational and interested in avoiding danger. In calculating their interests they can perceive the need to join together to pursue common goals, such as conquest for acquisition, p...
Despite it's age, I believe that Machiavelli's writing about individualism in The Prince is relevant to people who are not princes because Machiavelli's main themes are applicable to people of all types. To prove this I have organized my paper into four main sections. Section one- Machiavelli's History, will move toward the thesis by showing that Machiavelli's life experience was not that of royalty. Section two- Individualism, will show how Machiavelli's writing was individualistic, and how that relates to modern people. Section three- The Prince, will explore the main themes of Machiavelli's chief written work, creating the basis of comparison between Machiavelli's writing and modern life. Section four- Machiavelli in Business, relates the themes of section three to modern business.
I believe that man, by nature, is neither good nor evil. When a child comes out of its mother, one cannot tell whether or not that child will be a serial killer or win the Nobel Peace prize. A child’s environment is what forms it to be the adult that it will be one day. I believe that it also what one believes that makes him or her what that person will be one day. Machiavelli believed however that man was naturally an evil being, one that needed control (Prince).
It is due to the predecessor setting the principality to the upcoming prince, or the next-generation princes, to rule without revising the entire composition or DNA of the principality to be gainful to the prince, since it is already fixed by the former. There is already custom that the people will practice and obey, in which does not need a prince with great abilities and skill to rule and to mould such principalities. However, as Machiavelli asserts, a prince with an average skill, at this manner of principality, will be easy to be dethroned by usurping forces or strong forces. Machiavelli also stated that princes of hereditary principalities will be more loved than hated, except for the ones that exercise extreme vices or other misdeeds that would put off the citizens and others to follow and accord to the prince’s rule, because these princes have moderate or lesser desires and needs to want from his people. Thus, the situation is that the prince would be more considerate and caring for his people, or less
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’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...
In the many sections Niccolo Machiavelli writes he constantly compares to extreme qualities, one of which is ideal, the other real. These extremes include love(ideal) vs fear, clemency(ideal) vs cruelty, generous(ideal) vs stingy, and integrity(ideal) vs lying. In comparing these different traits Machiavelli highlights the merits of opposing characteristics and (specifically)when it is effective to act in certain ways. He argues that a balance of both are vital as to prevent a prince from dipping too far into a pool of inescapable extremism. The following excerpts display the author’s contrast-centered style: “ Thus, it's much wiser to put up with the reputation of being a miser, which brings you shame without hate, than to be forced—just
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Adding complexity to what was conventionally considered essential for an efficacious sovereign, NicolÒ Machiavelli challenged the concept of ultimate moral goodness by introducing a nuance unnamed by any other philosopher. This new concept, virtÙ, is a pertinent piece of examination when evaluating Machiavelli’s political theory. VirtÙ, in a most basic definition, is the force and energy of the mind used for good or bad purposes. This opposes the prior notions that excellent leaders were able to only bestow good. The force that likely influenced Machiavelli to enlighten leaders about the importance of virtÙ can be traced to his political livelihood and experiences during an unstable political era, in which Italian city-states were under consistent attack from abroad. This constant political
In The Prince, Machiavelli writes his analysis of how to acquire and sustain political power under a principality. It is his understanding of human nature and the ability to maintain control over people that make up the base for all of the other theories he puts forth. Machiavelli is able to recognize what it takes to balance the citizens somewhere between happy and scared, so to keep them from revolting while appearing united and strong discouraging others form invading. Thucydides shares a similar view of human nature, as he sees all people as being motivated by fear, honor, and self interest. Machiavelli and Thucydides both demonstrate how a ruler can use many aspects of human nature to their advantage when ruling a state.
The Prince by Niccolò Machiavelli isn't about one man's ways to feed his power hungry mindset through gluttony, nor is it just explaining altercations between a nation's states. This writing is regarding to how one's self-confidence can make them become powerful in a society and also, the way morals and politics differ and can be separate in a government. Originally, Machiavelli wrote The Prince to gain support from Lorenzo de' Medici, who during the era, was governor of Florence. As meant as writing for how a society should be run, this book has been read by many peoples around the world who want to have better knowledge of the perfect stability of beliefs and politics required to run a good civilization.