Machiavelli's Actions

The seminal dialogue of Plato “The Republic” is one of the best works known to human history which attempts to define the notion of justice. “The Prince” of Machiavelli is one of the best political treatises which highlight the importance of the notion of power. Plato starts his seminal dialogue “The Republic” interposing a question “What is justice?”. Different people attempt to answer that question. Now, it is interesting to explore which definition of justice suggested by Cephalus, Polemarchus, Thrasymachus, Glaucon ,Adeimantus or Plato would be accepted or be most appropriate in the sense of Machiavelli. By saying most appropriate, one might understand which definition Machiavelli would want people to think of justice. In order to investigate this question, I would use the premises of human nature given by Machiavelli.

     Niccolo Machiavelli, one of the great political minds of the 15th century, accomplished what many mathematicians today only dream of, having one’s name used as an adjective. To be Machiavellian is to demonstrate characteristics of expediency, deceit, and cunning and as Machiavelli wrote in, The Prince, these are the qualities of a great leader. The Prince was published in 1531, creating great controversy with other political thinkers of the time. Machiavelli completely ignored the popular religious teachings of the era and erased the moral and ethical considerations from the leadership equation; the actions of a ruler should be governed solely by necessity. “Since I intend to write something useful to an

Machiavelli stressed that no art can deliberately aim at a negative result. As a realist, Machiavelli was concerned with reality and not how things could be. He was significantly influenced by his own failures in public life.

It would also decrease the prince’s ability to remain in power and maintain power. Had former president Bush not use the allegations of Iraq’s nuclear program, he would have been hated by public. Machiavelli states that the Prince should be neither loved nor hated. Therefore, the Prince while making decisions should make sure those decisions won’t result in disapproval from his subjects. That it is better for the prince to be feared than hated.

Niccolo Machiavelli was born in the city of Florence, on May Third, 1469. He came to power and was exiled by the Medici family. While he was exiled, he wrote The Prince to inform other leaders how to maintain power unlike himself. In his signature book, Machiavelli explained how a leader must always have war on his mind, never be hated, and be surrounded by truthful ministers. Leaders who shared a similar mentality as Machiavelli are Hongwu and Suleyman because of his harshness with government officials, and him being a patron of the arts, respectively.

To fully understand the context of Machiavelli and his purpose of The Prince an overview of the notable events of his life is needed. Born in 1469, he was a citizen of Florence, Italy. The political climate of Machiavelli’s home of Florence had changed dramatically following his return from his decade in Rome as a young adult. He served his native Florence in various capacities from 1494 to 1512 (Wiethoff, 1974: 99) but much of this time there was turbulence in government. Florence was facing the invasion of King Charles VIII of France, leading to the banishing of the entire Medici family from Florence.

Chapter seven in “The Prince”, written by Niccolo Machiavelli, talks about the difference between a person using virtue and fortune to maintain their power. In lecture, Professor Van Den Abbeele defined virtue as, “Whatever it takes to stay in power”. Machiavelli states that a prince who uses his own prowess, or virtue, to will be able to solidify a strong foundation and maintain his power, unlike a prince who uses fortune to rise through the ranks. In the chapter Machiavelli mentions Cesare Borgia, also known as Duke Valentino, as an example of a person gaining power through the fortune of his father, Pope Alexander VI. However, Cesare Borgia would later use his own prowess and intelligence to secure and solidify a strong foundation for him

According to Machiavelli, there are a few situations in which a leader can take power, each with varying levels of upkeep. The first is by sheer luck or buying land, which he explains is easy to acquire but hard to maintain. In the text, Machiavelli writes, “Although, they have no difficulty on the way as they go flying along, all their difficulties arise when they have landed” (Machiavelli 28). Because the new leader has no experience or loyal army it will be extremely challenging to stay in power. On the other hand, if a state is won by the new leaders abilities and talent he will have a much easier time (Machiavelli 24). Machiavelli also mentions many times the importance of having a loyal military. Being the commander of the Army of Italy,

People are unlikely to overthrow a ruler that they fear, for they dread the punishments of failure. If the ruler is not feared by the people, he will eventually upset enough of them that they will rise up against him. They will overthrow him because of his perceived weakness, and his name and image will be shamed in the eyes of both his government and his people. Machiavelli believes that the state is completely separate from the ruler’s private life. No matter how immoral or heartless the ruler may be in private, only his public image is important. A ruler can be a terrible, sleazy person on their own time, and when not involved with matters of the state, but at any time when the leader is involved in politics and the state, you cannot afford to injure the image of the ruler or else anarchy will develop. With this kind of rebellion can come revolution, war, and many other tragedies that could be otherwise avoided.

Much of modern political thought is attributed to Niccolo Machiavelli, and it is easy to see why that is he from his writings and thoughts in the Prince to the Discourses. In his writings, he starts in the prince by suggesting that one person should lead a country. For that, alone many would disregard Machiavelli for saying that an authoritarian leader would be able to govern best. Since in today's world, we find democratic societies in many different forms, and for anyone to say that an autocratic ruler would be best to run a country is heresy. Machiavelli though was not incompetent and put much thought into his writings. He showed evolving views in the Discourses turning to "ancient knowledge and experience as the first step to applying reason to politics (Sellers)."

attempt to flatter him. When choosing wise men for his government and allowing them the freedom to speak the truth to him

Machiavelli often “speaks well of evil” and cruelty and yet for many it is unacceptable to say anything bad about evil or to even mention it. He believes that those who come to power using brute force and cruelty should be respected but you should not necessarily follow what they do. In chapter 8 he talks about how if the prince must be cruel than he should never do so more than once or however many times in absolutely necessary because he will not have the continued trust of his people. It is permissible for Machiavelli to “speak well of evil” but he does not believe that being cruel or “speaking well of evil” is something that should be celebrated he sees it as something that should be respected.

When reading Niccolo Machiavelli's The Prince, one can't help but grasp Machiavelli's argument that morality and politics can not exist in the same forum. However, when examining Machiavelli's various concepts in depth, one can conclude that perhaps his suggested violence and evil is fueled by a moral end of sorts. First and foremost, one must have the understanding that this book is aimed solely at the Prince or Emperor with the express purpose of aiding him in maintaining power. Therefore, it is essential to grasp his concepts of fortune and virtue. These two contrary concepts reflect the manner in which a Prince should govern while minimizing all chance and uncertainty. This kind of governing demands violence to be taken, however

Niccoló Machiavelli is perhaps the greatest political thinker in history. He was a historian, musician, a poet, and he wrote comedies. He liked poetry as much as he liked philosophy. Machiavelli wrote and collected poems. His works, which are inspired by his life experiences, have been read by many of the worlds greatest politicians. Niccoló Machiavelli’s writing was influenced by the Medici family, the Soderini government in Italy, and his own diplomatic career. His great work, The Prince, is legendary for its impact in politics and its controversial proposals.

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).