More handpicked essays just for you.
Politics according to Machiavelli
Politics according to Machiavelli
Niccolo Machiavelli's ideas on government
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Politics according to Machiavelli
Machiavelli: In “The Prince”, Niccolo Machiavelli conveys a new perspective of governing a state that is majorly differential from humanists of his time. Machiavelli believes that most people are self-invested and affections for other people can be won or lost. He states that people generally try to avoid “affliction or oppression”. He states that although people can be very trustworthy at prosperous times, people will turn on you; people will become profit driven, deceitful, and also selfish. People will admire honor, courage, and generosity, but most people do not foster those virtues. Ambition thrives through the people who has risen up in power, but most people are satisfied with where they are now, so they don’t care as much to improve …show more content…
Ironically, the general will reflects the real will of a person in society. By definition, the general will is always right. The general will is the overriding good people are willing to sacrifice for equality amongst society, including various private wills. Overall, a "good citizen" conforms to society's laws a goodness and wisdom exceeding his own goodness and wisdom”. Therefore it is quite common for a person to mistake their wanted will and which he truly wills. The “good citizen” is able to distinguish his own will from the general will. People whom refuses to comply with the general will is then forced. Rousseau believes that if a person wants to be generally good, the rulers can make them good. Rousseau thus reviewed the political society and states that he wants man to use society to liberate themselves and serve the will; ultimately relieving their corruption and mistaken perception form
Many empirical things can often still be debated and refuted by experts, but there is a general admittance to the idea that power is the root of many evil things. In all fairness, we must admit that a many evil things can in their essence, be great. And that is one of the many theories advanced by Niccolo Machiavelli in his well-known work, The Prince. The Prince serves a dual purpose of both teaching a person how to attain power, but also how to retain it. Incredibly enough, history has proven most of Machiavelli’s findings and theories to work well, while some have failed to effectively secure power for the rulers who did, in fact try them. His work, does obviously highlight one main fact, which is, that power is a well sought-after attribute, and most who attain are willing to do whatever is necessary to keep it.
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.
Rousseau, however, believed, “the general will by definition is always right and always works to the community’s advantage. True freedom consists of obedience to laws that coincide with the general will.”(72) So in this aspect Rousseau almost goes to the far extreme dictatorship as the way to make a happy society which he shows in saying he, “..rejects entirely the Lockean principle that citizens possess rights independently of and against the state.”(72)
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...
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.
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.
In his work The Prince, Niccolò Machiavelli explores the complex relationship between a ruler and his people, but ultimately comes to the conclusion that the people, because they are crucial to the well being of the country, are to be manipulated in order for a country to thrive. In order to manipulate effectively one must keep the people oppressed, but not to the point of inspiring hate, and only when that balance is achieved is when a ruler can successfully manipulate their people.
It is difficult to determine Niccolo Machiavelli?s and Thomas More?s view on human?s nature. Each took a different approach to the topic. Through Utopia, Thomas More attempted to change man?s thinking by creating an ideological society. Niccolo Machiavelli, through The Prince, attempted to teach man how to deal with human nature. With this in mind, Machiavelli?s concept is much more realistic than More?s; therefore Machiavelli better represents human nature. Machiavelli?s view of human nature in The Prince, presents, on the surface, a view of governing a state drastically different for his time. Machaivelli believed that the ruling Prince should be the sole authority determining every aspect of the state and put into effect a policy which would serve his best interests. With this, Machiavelli uses the prince as man, and the state as the man?s life. These interests were gaining, maintaining, and expanding his political power. Though in some cases Machiavelli may seem harsh and immoral, one must remember that his views were derived from concern of Italy?s unstable political condition in the 1500s. Machiavelli seems to be teaching the common man how to live his life so that their life is good and prosperous. Machiavelli generally distrusted citizens, stating that ??since men are a sorry lot and will not keep their promises to you, you likewise need not keep yours to them? (Machiavelli 651). Furthermore, ? a prince never lacks legitimate reasons to break his promises? when, ?such an observance of faith would be to his disadvantage; and when the reasons which made him promise are removed? (651). Machiavelli did not feel that a Prince should mistreat the citizens. This suggestion once again to serve the Prince?s best interests. If a Prince can not be both feared and loved, Machiavelli suggests, it would be better for him to be feared by the citizens within his own dogma. He makes the generalization that men are, ?? ungrateful, fickle, simulators and deceivers, avoiders of danger, greedy for gain; and while you work for their good they are yours? (649). He characterizes men as being self-centered and not willing to act in the best interest of the state,? and when it (danger) comes nearer to you they turn away? (649). Machiavelli reinforces the Prince?s need to be feared by stating: ??men are less hesitant about harming someone who makes himself loved than one who makes himself feared?
Jean-Jacques Rousseau was a man of philosophy, music, and literature. His philosophy was that humanity will do what’s best for the state as a whole, rather than the general “every man for himself” philosophy. He says that while we do have a piece of that individualistic philosophy, it is when they are in a healthy state that they value fairly the collective good for everyone around them, and express the general sense of good will. Rousseau believes that people will recognize that the will of all is the common good, but that in itself raises the questions as to the validity ...
Second, given the degenerate condition of eighteenth century culture, it was improbable that people would think about the benefit of everyone, rather than how much they would take after their own particular self-intrigue. For Rousseau, the general will was not to be considered as a total of each of the individual observations, yet as an outflow of the aggregate impression of what was the benefit of everyone. Once more, as with the Greek polis, the accentuation was on the investment of all people in government and enactment. The hidden standard was that administration was not an administration of bosses over the group, but rather an office for teaching its residents to high minded direct and moral freedom. One method for valuing the way that administration was not a government of bosses over the group but rather an organization for teaching its subjects to righteous lead and good freedom, is to inspect a portion of the suggestions in subtle elements: the two most fascinating cases are Rousseau's exchange of the part of the "lawmaker" and 'common religion’.
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...
Machiavelli stated “..., if the prince is reasonably assiduous he will always maintain his rule, unless some extraordinary and inordinate force deprives him of it; and if so deprived, whenever the usurper suffers a setback he will reconquer.” 1 Here Machiavelli proclaims that the natural prince will have the peoples support as long as the princes ambitions are moderate. Machiavelli also states that the natural prince will have less reason to cause the people to hate, when he states “ The fact is that the natural prince has less reason and less need to give offence; and so it follows that he should be more loved; ” 1 Now Machiavelli shifts his focus toward new states. Machiavelli states that new principalities are far more difficult to sustain than hereditary principalities for many reasons. Machiavelli claims that conquering new states is the most dangerous and difficult mission
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
...gainst the state and the general will. Rousseau contends that, “every offender who attacks the social right becomes through his crimes a rebel and traitor to his homeland” (Rousseau 65). Once this offense has been undertaken, the criminal is longer a member of society and is now viewed as an enemy. The state’s preservation is at odds with the preservation of the offender and therefore the offender must be put to death. Also, Rousseau feels that the danger of members trying to enjoy the benefits of civil society without performing their required duties is a serious threat to civil society. Such actions must be constrained by all other citizens and offenders to this agreement must be “forced to be free” (Rousseau 55). This is a rather paradoxical argument as the idea of forcing someone to be free hardly works in most people’s definition of freedom. What is essential to remember here is that Rousseau believes that the true form of freedom can only come about once an individual enters civil society and accept the terms of the social contract. Therefore by forcing someone to adhere to society’s order, you are really granting them with civil freedom, the most important freedom of all.
To make this argument I will first outline this thought with regard to this issue. Second, I will address an argument in support of Rousseau’s view. Third, I will entertain the strongest possible counterargument to my view; namely, the idea that the general will contradicts itself by forcing freedom upon those who gain no freedom from the general will. Fourth, I will rebut that counter argument by providing evidence that the general will is always in favor of the common good. Finally, I will conclude my paper by summarizing the main lines of the argument of my paper and reiterate my thesis that we can force people to be free.