Ethical Issues In The Prince

In The Prince, Machiavelli discusses ways in which a ruler should obtain power and maintain power, emphasizing the concept of gaining power through virtue versus fortune. Virtue, or virtu in the original Italian, is defined as the masculine quality of power, and not necessarily tied to ideas of morality as it is in the English definition.

Beneath its cloak, the infamous War on Terror garners striking similarities to WWI.  The terror attack on Austria-Hungary ignited the War on Terror…nearly a century later.  It was not until 1914 that a terrorist attack was utilized to provoke military response.  The attack of September 11 is a modern replay of this attack.  George W. Bush leapt into the war against Baghdad in 2003 with the same attitude of Woodrow Wilson in the Great War.  One of Wilson’s reasons for going to war against Germany was based on his belief that his

The world is now watching our actions closely. We are on the right side of justice in this war and should not give up our moral high ground in achieving our ends. Washington's immediate, bipartisan response to the terrorist attacks speaks well for our representatives and reflects the revived sense of patriotism prevalent nationwide. However, we are now sufficiently distanced from the attacks of September 11 to hold the Administration's proceedings to the very American standard of justice, which we are now engaged in defending. I am shocked to witness this country quietly succumb to the recent blatant and inappropriate expansion of powers the Justice Department and White House have assumed. This is not melodrama. A democratically elected US President and his Attorney General are proceeding as if they were reading out of a rouge states' instruction manual. This country is too great to fall to cave-dwelling terrorists who redirect a population's frustrations at us. It is not un-American to question the legitimacy of the recent anti-terrorism legislation, though risky for politicians who face being labeled liberal or soft in their response to the attacks. There is no question that we are justified in using tremendous force in retaliation. We do risk losing the world's support and help though if we now abandon our judicial processes. The United States is undermining the fight against terrorism by allowing President Bush to assume

Prior to 9/11there had been various terrorist attacks on Americans around the world and on American soil. However the events of September 11 intensely changed the United States Government’s approach towards terrorism. After September 11, the Bush Administration changed the previous American approach, which had primarily employed the combined tools of diplomatic cooperation, economic sanctions, and internationally coordinated law enforcement measures (Lee 2007: 137). Instead, the President declared in the aftermath of September 11 that the United States was engaged in a war on terrorism. In this war all terrorists who plotted against the United States and those who supported them were subject to American justice. This new

History 's most prominent leaders have shown extreme congruence. These leaders almost always hold reality over ethics. How can we classify lying and manipulative leaders as immoral when their duplicity is the very reason a society can maintain stability? This idea has of "means justifying the ends" has been a staple in History 's most prosperous of societies. Machiavelli 's novel The Prince was the first stab at understanding this human tendency of what is now known as Machiavellian. Machiavelli grasped the sad reality of our world and did not fall prey to other 's idealistic propaganda. Great leaders understand what the endless potential they hold, they can manipulate their followers to make best of what is possible and above all they understand sacrifice. Modern day Machiavellians and successful leaders think realistically and communicate through idealism. No matter the extremes of your belief, utilizing Machiavellian tactics have the capability to bring anyone to power.

“It is much safer to be feared than loved.” This quotation was just a specimen of the harsh and very practical political annotation of the legendary historian, Niccolò Machiavelli – philosopher, patriot, diplomat, advisor and statesman. He was born as the son of a poor lawyer in 1498, but he never let boundaries restrict him. He still received an excellent humanist education from the University of Florence and was soon after appointed as the Second Chancellor of the Republic of Florence.2 His political importance to Florence would soon give him the opportunity to write what is disputed as one of the most significant works in history, The Prince.

The policies that the United States has implement towards the War on Terror both conform and diverge from Machiavellian ideals in regards to foreign policy. Machiavelli states that to obtain and maintain power in a newly acquired state a ruler must “give offense…by imposing troops upon them”. The U.S. immediately acted towards this goal after the terrorist attacks in September 2001. The immediate action of the U.S. also correlate with the advice Machiavelli gives about the swiftness that must be taken to avoid war; “one should never allow a problem to develop in order to avoid war, for you end up not avoiding war, but deferring it to a time that will be less favorable”. By taking immediate action, the U.S. was able to take control of the situation at a time that allowed for the most support from the citizens of the U.S. along with other world powers. This was demonstrated by the surge of support that President Bush obtained immediately after the declaration of war.

In the fourth chapter of Machiavelli's Prince, he doesn’t tell his readers the right or wrong ways to conquer a country, instead he spells out both options for leaders and their advantages and disadvantages. Machiavelli uses examples that were world famous. They are empires that shaped the world his readers lived in, and still shape the world modern readers live in. He uses names that would have been household names, Darius, Alexander the Great, the Turks etc.

Niccolo Machiavelli and Karl Marx developed theories concerning wealth and poverty in our society, as well as different types of governments. For instance, Machiavelli supported a capitalist economic system, unlike Marx, who embraced socialism in the society. Machiavelli wrote a book "The Prince" that explained how to be an effective leader. The theme of the book is "the end justifies the means." A person could or should do whatever is necessary to achieve the desired goal. According to Machiavelli, there is no concept of a perfect ruler, but only effective or ineffective leaders. Therefore, he claims that there are no fair fighters, but only losers and winners. Contrary, Marx embraced democracy as good practice for the government. This paper will analyze whether Marx would buy Machiavelli 's thought that states "desired ends justify undesirable means" (Weng 1).

Why do we as people have a hard time accepting people or opinions that are different from ourselves? People need to understand that everybody is different, so you should accept them for who they are. From these three sources there was valuable information pulled that shows why you should accept people or opinions “My So Called Enemy”, “Texans Vs Johnson” by Ronald J Allen. These articles were different but have the common theme people have different opinions from ourselves.

Nowadays, it is politically impossible to commit to paper a "training guide" for leaders. There are innumerable detractors to any possible stance or strategy a leader might adopt. As a result of this, all "training" must take place behind closed doors, far from the prying eyes and ears of the news media or the public. But this has not always been the case.

The political situation that prompted Machiavelli to write The Prince was that Italy wasn’t a unified country yet. It was a bunch of city states.

In the book, The Prince, Niccolo Machiavelli thoroughly explains the lifestyle a proper prince should uphold and the skills/actions he should keep in his arsenal, if the time ever comes. I’ve chosen chapters 15, 16, and 17 to further my claims on whether or not these ideas should be used in today’s government. Chapter 15 mainly focuses on the things for which men, but mainly princes, are praised or blamed for in an everyday society. Chapter 16 touches on how often one should be generous and liberal. Finally, chapter 17, the most controversial chapter of Machiavelli’s book discussed among many, tells the famous line of whether it is better to be loved

Smart phones and computer have been around for quite a while, but the only difference is that the personal computers have been around way longer than smart phones. Before computers were a big deal, but now it’s all about smart phones and new ones that are launching soon. People may not think so much about personal computers because today’s generation is all about smart phones now. I understand that people can have their own personal opinion and may disagree with what I’m saying, but my opinion is that personal computers are better. Personal computers is a better, electronic than smart phones because personal computers are not a distraction, and are a lot more helpful.

This was a step that attracted many foreign investors, Companies such as Ford, Unilever, Hyundai, Coca-Cola, McDonalds, Enron and Nokia, counted India as a key strategic area of operation. Foreigners not only invested in India directly but also enter into joint ventures or take significant stakes in long-established Indian companies. Companies named Ford Credit Kotak Mahindra, Prudential ICICI, Birla 3M, etc. To ease consolidation with the parent company's financial statements or to understand the results of the joint ventures, Indian companies affiliated to such multinationals adopt international