Machiavelli's Political Thinker Perspective View

Machiavelli led us to a question that was continuously in disagreement. That question was “Is it better to be loved than feared, or vice versa” (p.392)? Machiavelli thought that one is to be loved & feared. Nevertheless, at the same time it’s tremendously hard to achieve being both loved & feared. Machiavelli believed that if one had to do without one of them that it would be a safer to be feared than to be loved. For example if a ruler was more loved than feared then if you served their men’s interest & were also devoted to them they would promise you their blood, possessions, lives, & children until you needed help because once you needed help you were on our own. If you’re more feared than loved then when you’re in trouble your

Machiavelli also presents the idea that the power of a leader depends more on the qualities of the man than on of god. Thats the matter, loved and feared-qualities need there limits the same way as anything else in a social relation. Machiavelli himself stating that a man who makes himself loved than who makes himself feared; the reason is that love is a link to obligation, which men, because they are rotten, and will break any time soon. Machiavelli complicates the nation of good as purely subordinate power, arguing that the excess of “good” can actually do harm. In this case too much clemency can lead to uprisings and civil war. Cruelty what Machiavelli believes in, states that it can serve the greater good. I personally disagree with Machiavelli's text, I think love is stronger than fear. A commander loved by his soldiers will defeat a commander feared by his soldiers in almost all battles, but the feared commander is less subject to arbitrary chance. Its not only love that can destroy a man, so can fear.

At first glance, Socrates and Machiavelli appear to have a lot in common.  They both lived in a time of political unrest and violence. They both dealt with uncertain surroundings in their societies. Most importantly, they both tried to use philosophy to improve their society. However, there was also an important difference between them. While Socrates was a moral philosopher whose goal was to search for truth and knowledge, Machiavelli was a political philosopher whose goal was to create a lasting society with a Prince that could hold power. Because of their clashing ideals, it is unlikely that Socrates would be supportive of a Machiavellian political system or Prince, though there are specific aspects of the society that Socrates would

Machiavelli believe that fear allows a ruler to be in power, but does not mean they he is hated. Whereas love can lead to hatred because a ruler should not inspire love in others because they will turn against them once they do not fear their

In his landmark political treatise The Prince, Italian diplomat Niccolo Machiavelli put forth a framework for ruling a people that is at once derided and deferred to even today. The highly controversial ideology calls for a firm, even ruthless form of leadership that commands respect through any means necessary. Machiavelli allows even for the use of fear, violence and evil where appropriate. But it is in defining where these tactics are appropriate that we enter a discussion about the American political process. In one respect, our electoral cycle differentiates the United States significantly from the feudal hierarchy of 16th Century Italy. In another respect though, a reflection on the wholesale corruption of the former Bush administration may suggest otherwise. Today, it may be argued that many conservative and Republican political figures closely resemble Machiavelli in their espoused extremism but in fact, differ from the philosopher in their overall intentions. Where Machiavelli underscored his framework with an understanding that rulership is for the greater good, regardless of the measures employed to maintain this, self-interest and greed are a common presence in today's political process.

However, Machiavelli's implies that a leader who strives to be loved would avoid punishing his people; hence this leader is vulnerable to a transgression by his people since there are no repercussions for opposing his rule. The example of Scipio he used portrays this perfectly as his army rebelled due to his kindness. The absence of repercussions for opposing a prince hence can lead to their authority being undermined, which suggests that it is better for a prince to be loved rather than feared. However, this ignores that people can be blinded by their love for a leader, robbing them of their ability to transgress in the way that he describes; the supporter of President Trump demonstrates this perfectly.

Machiavelli brought up many controversial and untraditional points regarding what a kingdom or prince was allowed to do to maintain power. The most extreme, being that the prince wasn't held to any moral code in the practice of maintaining power. A prince must be prepared to ward off any conflicting power even if it means breaking traditional moral codes. Other powers, Machiavelli believed, wouldn't be so kind in combat and a prince must fight back with equal or greater force. Another point is that it's better to be feared than loved. Machiavelli believed that love didn't

According to Machiavelli's view of how to be an effective leader, a ruler should be one who is feared but not hated. Machiavelli states that fear is better than love because love is unreliable. All of the reasons that Machiavelli gives relate to how human nature controls men and drives them to commit crimes in order to reach their goals and satisfy themselves.

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.

Niccolo Machiavelli is a very pragmatic political theorist. His political theories are directly related to the current bad state of affairs in Italy that is in dire need of a new ruler to help bring order to the country. Some of his philosophies may sound extreme and many people may call him evil, but the truth is that Niccolo Machiavelli’s writings are only aimed at fixing the current corruptions and cruelties that filled the Italian community, and has written what he believed to be the most practical and efficient way to deal with it. Three points that Machiavelli illustrates in his book The Prince is first, that “it is better to be feared then loved,”# the second

His immediate dismissal of the power of evoking positive emotions in followers fails to stand on its own. In every claim leading up to this one, Machiavelli will support it with historical evidence. However, when it comes to dismissing love in his citizens (not military men), he does not offer historical evidence. The real weakness in his assumption lies in him underestimating the power that love can hold between a leader and his subjects. Evoking love leads to loyalty and support, two powerful things that leaders need to keep a hold on their territory, while fear only incites fear.

Machiavelli went on to discuss the strategies of ruling by fear. "For it is perfectly possible to be feared without incurring hatred," shows that Machiavelli really thought over his writings. For it is highly possible that one who hates may to try to destroy that which he hates even if it means self destruction in the process.

On the other hand, Machiavelli’s conceptions are that people are good only when it helps them, humans are wicked by nature, and glory and riches are the end goal. “In projects aiming at what everyone aims at, namely glory and riches…” (52). According to Machiavelli, the end goal is not the “good” unlike Aristotle’s claim that it is, but rather that glory and money are, which is a view that holds true even today. In reference to whether it’s better to be feared or loved, Machiavelli states it’s better to be feared. “The reason for this is a facet about men in general: they are ungrateful, fickle, deceptive, cowardly, and greedy. As long as the ruler is doing them good, they are entirely yours,” (36). He continues with the idea that if the ruler

It is fundamentally important to preface the discussion hosted in this essay by addressing ourselves to the most mundane question-why consider Machiavelli in the context of philosophy, least of all, political philosophy? This question dominates any philosophical inquiries of the Machiavelli’s political ideologies. Put differently, do the contributions by Niccolò Machiavelli to the various salient discourses in the Western thought, most notably political theory, meet the requisite standard models of academic philosophy? Machiavelli essentially seems not to consider himself a philosopher. In fact, he overtly disapproved of any philosophical inquiries into his works. In addition, his credentials do not qualify him to be properly admitted within the realm of philosophy (NeDermAN, 2002).

Although he may be considered cold hearted and unjust, I believe that in many roles of political leadership, a person will have to be cold in many areas of ruling. Machiavelli is a leader who understands the human mind. With this knowledge he has, he influences the people. If the people are loyal to their leader they will prosper and benefit mutually. If the city so does the leader and he gains more power. So to me it seems like a cycle of you get what you want, and I get what I want. Machiavelli understood the place of a prince and the place of his subjects and citizens. He knows what leadership consist of and how to obtain true power. He also knows that most common people do not, and they should be ruled over for their own good. Maybe I'm being too easy and optimistic about Machiavelli, but I do believe he gives sound advice based on his knowledge of how people work and think. Pain and evil are real and necessary to in order to rule affectively. Machiavelli states that laying down a solid foundation is important in building a successful future for the city/state. By doing evil and causing pain, it might be hurtful at the time, but in the long run, a good prince will be setting up a solid foundation for future