The Prince, By Machiavelli

While Thoughts From The Tao-te Ching by Lao-Tzu and The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli are both pieces of work that serve as ground rules or guidelines for a ruler on how to rule a country, the two authors’ prepositions vary tremendously. One author takes on a susceptible viewpoint, while another takes on a much more conservative outlook. There are many factors as to why they differ so much. Even though Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli both provide intricate structures as to how rulers should run their state, there are extreme differences between the two.

In The Prince, Machiavelli explains what a good and successful prince should be like. He advocates a strong, cutthroat authority figure and encourages the winning of power by any means necessary. The main theme in The Prince is that mob rule is dangerous, for people know only what is good for themselves and not what is good for the whole. The common people, in Machiavelli’s view, “are ungrateful, fickle, liars, and deceivers, they shun danger and are greedy for profit; while you treat them well, they are yours”. He believes that these commoners should be

In Niccolo Machiavelli’s article to the Italy Prince, he mentioned a lot about the morals that a prince should have. He wrote that as a prince of a country political power is much important than human nature and sometimes prince needs to neglect morals in order to get political power, which I agree with his idea. The difference between a prince and a civilian is that prince has the political power that a normal people could not have, so the prince should use his political power correctly, which can lead the country to become better and united. To use the political power in a right way as Machiavelli said in his article, the prince sometimes needs to be a miser and feared by his people. To do so, the prince can gain the political power. Having

The Prince is essentially a guide book on how to acquire and maintain political power. We can think of it as a collection of rules and methods to achieve a level of superior authority. Its main focus is that the ends—no matter how immoral—justify the means for preserving political authority. While some may agree with this mindset of thinking many today dismiss Machiavelli as a cynic. The book shows rulers how it is that they should act to survive in the real world to maintain authority. While Niccolo Machiavelli’s ideas can be radical, they helped to spark a revolution in political philosophy. Although his ideas might have not been completely original, they were very different and unheard of at the time, The Prince, was published. Machiavelli uses many methods to convey his messages including biblical comparisons and of course metaphors. This character can be viewed in several manners. He is almighty and powerful, stopping at nothing to achieve his goals or have his ways. While this quality does qualify him to be a might leader it also raises the question of immorality. How far will one go to maintain order? Would you stop at nothing to achieve this task? Machiavelli shows this by saying, “it is

Although written nearly two centuries apart, The Republic by Plato and The Prince by Machiavelli offer important views on political philosophies of rulers. Plato writes of a perfect society where status as ruler is naturally selected through innate abilities. These abilities are used to sustain the society, better it, and preserve it. Machiavelli writes of a society where anyone can be a prince; which for our purposes is a synonym for ruler, if they follow his instructions. These instructions are to ensure a new ruler can take control of new lands and maintain order in them for the sake of conquering and expanding power.

In The Prince, Machiavelli states that in an ideal world, it is virtuous for a prince to be good. But in reality, princes who distance themselves from ethical concerns and do whatever it takes for the benefit of their states rule best. Therefore, it is better to be greedy than generous, cruel than loving, crafty than honest. Machiavelli's general rule is to be as good as circumstances allow, but be willing to resort to any means necessary for the good of the country (Coleman, 147). A prince must be willing to resort to evil if that is what it takes to ensure the happiness and future of his subjects. Proper cruelty is done at one time and serves a specific purpose. Improper cruelty is repetitive and threatening to the citizens. A wise prince must be willing to practice proper cruelty in order to maintain power, but avoid improper cruelty so that his subjects do not turn on him and revolt. Perhaps the thing most emphasized by Machiavelli is the need for the support of

In the text, The Prince, Niccolo Machiavelli talks about the power that a leader must imply over the followers in order to maintain the control. Machiavelli states that there are certain ways in which people in leadership maintain the power; one of them is to avoid being sentimental toward other people; another way is that leaders should be able to take control over people by using cruelty, and making people to fear, but acknowledging that there must be a limit in which people use this cruelty. As long as The Prince ( or any other ruler) is helping the people to benefit themselves from his leadership, he is making the correct use of these ways to maintain the power. However, there could be doubts over the power that an individual implies over the people, since people could look for the weaknesses that this individual possesses. So, in order for a ruler to maintain the power he/she has to avoid being sentimental, use cruelty in a moderate way, and benefit the followers as he proceeds with the leadership.

"Machiavelli identifies the interests of the prince with the interests of the state." He felt that it was human nature to be selfish, opportunistic, cynical, dishonest, and gullible, which in essence, can be true. The state of nature was one of conflict; but conflict, Machiavelli reasoned, could be beneficial under the organization of a ruler. Machiavelli did not see all men as equal. He felt that some men were better suited to rule than others. I believe that this is true in almost any government. However, man in general, was corrupt -- always in search of more power. He felt that because of this corruptness, an absolute monarch was necessary to insure stability. Machiavelli outlined what characteristics this absolute ruler should have in The Prince. One example of this can be seen in his writings concerning morality. He saw the Judeo-Christian values as faulty in the state's success. "Such visionary expectations, he held, bring the state to ruin, for we do not live in the world of the "ought," the fanciful utopia, but in the world of "is". The prince's role was not to promote virtue, but to insure security. He reasoned that the Judeo-Christian values would make a ruler week if he actually possessed them, but that they could be useful in dealing with the citizens if the prince seemed to have these qualities. Another example of Machiavelli's ideal characteristics of a prince

Machiavelli bases his observations on what he believes the “real world” is, and not on an imagined ideal. Machiavelli’s first states that there is so much difference between the way people should act and the way they do act that any prince must know when to act immorally. Cliff notes claims, “Everyone agrees that a prince should have all good qualities, but because that is impossible, a wise prince will avoid these vices that would destroy his power and not worry about the rest.” Machiavelli recommends that leaders be bad rather than good. Furthermore, he justifies this statement by saying that since we do not live in a perfect little world one cannot be perfect to survive when the world is full of unscrupulous people. This is where I disagree

In The Morals of the Prince Machiavelli expresses his presumption on how a prince should act. He expresses that a prince should be feared, merciful, stingy, etc. He is right because if a prince is loved and too generous then people will take advantage of him and that will lead to his down fall. A prince must act appropriately to remain in power. Machiavelli gives his best ideas to keep a prince in power.

Machiavelli with especially clear how little he values Christian morality and principalities. He argued that the realm of idealism would only bring a pretty down for the difference must strive to be practical and that he must learn how to work in a frame of something other than moral. Though the practice of moral principles is useless to a prince, machiavelli did say that it prints should allow themselves to participate in moral goodness but only when those actions do not threaten the security of his state. However Machiavelli makes it clear that being a prince is not a moral occupation and that when the time comes to be in moral a ruler must be able to frame to their people then in moral action was at least necessary if not to be able to deceive them into believing that the action was moral to begin with. An excellent example of a prince craft fully framing a situation to his advantage would be when duke Valentino framed to the people to the actions of the cruel man, Messer Remirro de Orca, he had personally put in power to restore order to a chaos written state we're not the orders of the Duke but rather that the man was working under his own order. This gave the Duke the

Machiavelli was consumed with rulers having and keeping power, by whatever force necessary. This seems to contradict what he is saying about the common good and civic virtues. If the ruler is only interested in power, what care would he have for the people? None, it seems to me. According to Ian Johnston, The Prince was more than just a feeble

Machiavelli goes on in Chapters Fifteen through Twenty Three to discuss his advice to the reader in the ideal behavior and characteristics of a prince. He mentions that doing good would only lead to the ruin of a prince’s kingdom. He claims that a prince should be stingy and cruel as opposed to generous and merciful. He then, of course, adds in examples of successful rulers who were both moral and immoral alike. A prince should break promises more than he keeps them, according to the author. He also suggests that, while behaving in the aforementioned ways, a prince should do his best to avoid being despised by leaving his subjects’ land and women alone and by undertaking great projects to boost his reputation. As suggested at the beginning of Chapter Nineteen, a prince should not be “fickle, frivolous, effeminate, cowardly, [or] irresolute,” (70). ¬¬¬He should also choose wise, as opposed to flattering, advisors.

Machiavelli’s lowering of politics creates an impact on the way ordinary subjects and citizens behave, a prince, according to Machiavelli, should be loved but most important to him, this sovereign should be feared, citizens need to obey and follow regulations and be faithful to the ruler, they are expected to honor and fight for their sovereign, in general, Machiavelli does not go into so much detail about the duties of the people, but he explains that by teaching the prince how to manage the system, he is working for the sake of people, as Machiavelli explains, a prince should follow two policies in which one of the two explains how a sovereign must keep balance and unchanged laws when conquering new territories, “not to change their laws or impose new taxes” (Machiavelli’s The Prince, page 8) what he means by this is that a sovereign should respect customs and traditions, the way people

In the first place, people are not good. They will act only in accordance with whatever will best suit their needs. It is human nature to act first and foremost with one’s self interest in mind regardless of what would provide a benefit to the state. This is why a ruler who acts in a good manner to those he rules and expects to only receive the same in return is only fooling himself while also putting the safety and peace of his state in harm’s way. (Klosko 2012) In the words of Machiavelli, “…for a man who wishes to act entirely up to his professions of virtue soon meets with what destroys him among so much that is evil.” (Machiavelli 2006, Chap XV) In this, Machiavelli reinforces the idea that due to the nature of man, it is important for a ruler to not