The first most emphasized characteristic in Machiavelli’s theory of an ideal prince is power when possible a prince should attempt to gather support from others but always rely on his own arms. Relying on friends, luck, or other people’s arms may seem easier but will turn out harder to hold on to in the end. Machiavelli provides an entire chapter based on Cesare Borgia, who rose to eminence mostly through his father’s connections, however he was cunning enough to take hold of his newly acquired position. In the beginning of The Prince Machiavelli classifies many kinds of states, mainly focusing on one that is the hardest to attend to also known as New States. Since a New State is easy to conquer but hard to handle a prince must provide a powerful central management. Without it a …show more content…
However a person who has a position of authority but does not embody the qualities needed to encourage the skills and abilities among their own workers will quickly lose respect and support from their people. In the unstable time of shifting powers, where Machiavelli was born into, there was only solely power grabbing but no leadership. Machiavelli wrote “It is not titles that honor men, but men that honor titles." When a leader only acts on impulse because of his position, eventually the people begin to disagree and soon revolt. People of a principality should have respect, loyalty, and fear towards their prince. A society that is loyal and fearful of their prince with fight bravely against threats and obey the prince’s policies. To reach the premises of this ideal goal the base would have to come from the citizens’ trust towards their prince. Though he had low tolerance for dishonesty, Machiavelli still believed that in order to be a good leader and to keep a strong grasp of your power, one must learn to be “not so good.” A good leader must know when to be dishonest
Machiavelli enumerated in his work, different types of princedoms and whether they are bound to fail from the start, simply based on their type and the way they are attained. Those princedoms are either Hereditary, Mixed, or completely New. Hereditary princedoms would of course be those in which power is passed down within a family. Mixed princedoms would be princedoms that are reinvented through
Machiavelli’s, “The Prince” is the ideal book for individuals intending to both govern and maintain a strong nation. Filled with practical advice, he includes numerous religious references to support his claims. He devotes a chapter within the book to speak about the ancient founders of states. In the chapter called, “On new principalities that are acquired by one’s own arms and by virtue”, Machiavelli discussed the importance of a prince to have their own talent in governing a nation, rather than having relied on fortune to rule. The latter is a risk no leader should take and he cited past leaders as a guide for both the current and future princes.
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.
Niccolò Machiavelli was a man who lived during the fourteen and fifteen hundreds in Florence, Italy, and spent part of his life imprisoned after the Medici princes returned to power. He believed that he should express his feelings on how a prince should be through writing and became the author of “The Qualities of a Prince.” In his essay, he discusses many points on how a prince should act based on military matters, reputation, giving back to the people, punishment, and keeping promises. When writing his essay, he follows his points with examples to back up his beliefs. In summary, Machiavelli’s “The Qualities of a Prince,” provides us with what actions and behaviors that a prince should have in order to maintain power and respect.
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.
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.
For all of Machiavelli’s ruthlessness and espousal of deceit, he knew the value of authenticity and relying on his administration. A true leader cannot achieve greatness alone. Machiavelli says that the prince is the state, and the state is the prince. This means that whatever vision and principles the leader holds in the highest regard, they must be known to the state so that they can be realized. He believed that no matter how a prince was elected, his success would depend largely on his ministers. Collaboration between a prince and ministers would create an atmosphere of harmony and camaraderie, highly reducing the chances of rebellion. Without the support and cooperation of the people, military action is not possible, expansion is not possible and most importantly, governance is not possible. If a leader does not satisfy the needs of the people, they have the power to overthrow him through strength in numbers. Thus, a leader depends just as much on the people as they do on him. A leader must be able to convince the people to buy into his visio...
Possibly the most controversial book ever written, The Prince by Machiavelli, focuses on how a Prince or leader should rule. Many of the techniques that are stated in the text have caused many debates ever since it’s publication. When Machiavelli composed the Prince, his contemporaries were shocked at the ideas and themes presented. The Prince introduced a whole new way of thinking that was almost completely contrary to present beliefs. For that reason, in 1559 the Pope banned the printing of the Prince and the rest of Machiavelli’s writings. What makes the Prince so controversial? The ideas presented in the book, such as the end justifies the means, makes it so controversial. Machiavelli’s influence can be seen through out history and literature. Because of his massive influence, Machiavelli acquired the word Machiavellian, meaning anyone characterized by the political principles and methods that Machiavelli recommended in The Prince. There are many examples of past and present Machiavellian leaders, such as King Henry VIII, Joseph Stalin, and Adolf Hitler. Machiavelli’s The Prince makes an easy guide for any dictator or leader to rule and sustain power.
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.
Through his many years of experience with Italian politics Machiavelli wrote “The Prince”; a how-to guide for new rulers. We are given descriptions of what a leader should do to effectively lead his country. A leader should be the only authority determining every aspect of the state and put in effect a policy to serve his best interests. These interests are gaining, maintaining, and expanding his political power. Machiavelli’s idea is that a ruler should use a variety of strategies (virtues) to secure his power. Machiavelli lists five virtues that a ruler should appear to have; being compassionate, trustworthy, generous, honest and religious. A ruler should possess all the qualities considered good by other people.
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)
Kant’s theory is that an action must be done from duty in order to have any moral worth, therefore the moral worth of the action is depended entirely on the reason to perform the action not the consequence. Kant’s universal law test states that one should, “never act except in such a way that I can also will that my maxim should become a universal law” (Kant, 14). Kant’s objection is that the lying promise is a violation of duty and reason. Mill criticizes Kant of being a consequentialist and a closet utilitarian. Through Kant’s reasons for wrongness of the lying promise, conclusion on consequences of lying in our moral system and Mills idea of no true objectivism, I will show that Kant is not merely a closet utilitarian.