Morality is the single most controversial and mind-boggling train of thought currently known to human-kind, and no particular individual more so exemplifies this conflict (or better summarizes my own personal beliefs) than Niccolò Machiavelli. Few writers in the whole of the human history have inspired the kind of personal hatred that Machiavelli has in the last 500 years, and few works have been as vilified, (or as popular) as The Prince. Machiavelli has been slandered and portrayed as a defender of tyrannical government, an atheistic promoter of immorality, and a manipulator whose interests were all self-serving. Today, the Oxford dictionary still characterizes "Machiavellian" as "of, like, or characterized by the political principles and methods of expediency, craftiness, and duplicity set forth in Machiavelli's book, The Prince; crafty, deceitful, and so on." Folk legend holds that "Old Nick," a slang term for the Devil, is derived from Machiavelli's first name, Niccolò. With that context kept in mind, isn’t morality founded on a specific set of core ideas? Isn’t it always defined by the acknowledgement of a central moral allegiance dominating all the others? From individualism to families, from tribalism to racism, from nationalism to religious fundamentalism or the allegiance to a totalitarian party what we see is the drawing of different “circles” centered on a basic, paramount moral norm. And Machiavelli is definitely not isolated in positing the interest of the nation as the foundation of his moral thinking. At the beginning of the 21st century we are still living within that same ideal nationalist realism. What could be more “Machiavellian” than the saying “My nation right or wrong”, which seems to be a still very popul...
... middle of paper ...
...day? How can we maintain that, in an era when, from migrations to terrorism to the Tsunami to Chernobyl to aviary flu to AIDS, we are obliged to cope with challenges that are global, “group ethics” (be it tribal, religious or nationalistic) matches our reality, our needs, our stage of human development? We are definitely not on the eve of a global state, and yet we are no longer able to confine our economic, political, cultural but also moral scope within the limits of the borders of our national republic.
There is no easy solution to our moral quandrums (another much discussed idea in the Discourses. Machiavelli’s daring, his awareness of unadorned reality, his honesty and anti-hypocrisy, his republican commitment can help us, if we are able to grasp the essence of his politics and his ethics, also in this very complex and problematic stage of human development.
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
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...
After five hundred years, Niccolo Machiavelli the man has ceased to exist. In his place is merely an entity, one that is human, but also something that is far above one. The debate over his political ideologies and theories has elevated him to a mythical status summed up in one word: Machiavelli. His family name has evolved into an adjective in the English language in its various forms. Writers and pundit’s bandy about this new adjective in such ways as, “He is a Machiavelli,” “They are Machiavelli’s,” “This is suitable for a Machiavelli.” These phrases are almost always the words of a person that understands more about Niccolo’s reputation than the man himself. Forgotten is that Machiavelli is not an adequate example of the ruler he is credited with describing; a more accurate statement would be to call someone a “Borgia” or a “Valentino.” Most of the time they are grossly mistaken in their references. All these words accomplish is to add to the legend, and the misinterpretation, of the true nature of Niccolo Machiavelli.
Throughout the years many rulers and princes have strived to be the best. The book some believe set the standards for a prince is Niccolo Machiavelli's "The Morals of a Prince." Machiavelli states "Hence it is necessary for a prince wishing to hold his own to know how to do wrong, and to make use of it or not according to necessity" proving that he believes it vital for a prince to know wrong in order to thrive and flourish (Machiavelli 331). Machiavelli undoubtedly has key points that reveal his feelings about being a successful, wrong prince. However, at times his ideology can be rather harsh.
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...
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
Machiavelli is undisputedly one of the most influential political philosophers of all time. In The Prince, his most well-known work, he relates clearly and precisely how a decisive, intelligent man can gain and maintain power in a region. This work is revolutionary because it flies in the face of the Christian morality which let the Roman Catholic Church hold onto Europe for centuries. Machiavelli's work not only ignores the medieval world's ethics: The Prince suggests actions which oppose the four most basic of Christianity's Ten Commandments.
Machiavelli 's works represent moral consequentialism. He argues if nothing is intrinsically right or wrong, and that being good isn 't necessarily rewarded, the "goodness" of our actions is inconsequential. "The Prince," in its essence, is a book about how to be an effective ruler. It does not present information as "right or "wrong in the philosophical or spiritual sense, but as "correct or "incorrect" in terms of being the most effective and powerful ruler one can be. In this sense, Machiavelli is separating ethics from politics and dealing with each of them separately. This is why Machiavelli is not necessarily tell the "prince" to be bad, but merely that being bad is acceptable
In The Prince, Machiavelli discusses morality and ethics concerning secular powers, specifically principalities and secular government. On the other hand, Erasmus discusses the role of morality and personal ethics with regards to religious institutions, specifically the church. While both address different institutions, both express similar viewpoints on many issues. Both agree that personal ethics and morals run thin in the institutions. However, while Machiavelli attempts to completely decouple the actions of good rulers from personal ethics, Erasmus argues that the church has lost track of its original principles down the line.
some cases Machiavelli's suggestions seem harsh and immoral one must remember that these views were derived from his
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.
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.
Niccolò Machiavelli wrote, in his novel The Prince, that strong central political leadership was more important than anything else, including religion and moral behavior. Machiavelli, writing during a period of dramatic change known as the Italian Renaissance, displayed attitudes towards many issues, mostly political, which supported his belief that strong government was the most important element in society. These attitudes and ideas were very appropriate for the time because they stressed strong, centralized power, the only kind of leadership that seemed to be working throughout Europe, and which was the element Italy was lacking. Machiavelli understood that obtaining such a government could not be done without separating political conduct and personal morality, and suggested that the separation be made. The Prince, written to the Medici family over five hundred years ago contained many truths, so universal and accurate that they still influence politics today.
For as long as people have studied politics, both leaders and countrymen alike have sought for an answer to the question “What is the most effective way to rule?” Many political philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and more Recently John Rawls have given answers to such a question, but none of them provide as solid a stance as Niccolo Machiavelli. Much of Machiavelli’s ideology centres around his dubious views on human nature. He, much like Hobbes, held the idea that when left in a state of nature, humans would become brutish and evil creatures who lived only to fulfill their personal needs and desires. However, this is only a small glimpse of Machiavelli’s beliefs regarding human nature.
Political order, or the success and security of the state, has a role of the utmost importance in Niccolò Machiavelli’s The Prince, so much so that it becomes sacred, taking over the role of religion in the state. Like the Catholic Church, political order encompasses every aspect of the life of the state, for it is the foundation off of which all princes form their acts, and like a god it defines what is good and what is evil. But though it is clear in The Prince that political order takes up a sacred role in the state, Machiavelli is not discrediting Christianity, but merely setting it up as secondary to political order. In other words, political order is a religion more powerful than Christianity, though the two co-exist in the state. I will