Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Introduction
Machiavelli has outlined the characteristics of an excellent ruler in his work The Prince. Machiavellis primary conception is that a good ruler has to focus on gaining and retaining power. Moreover, in The Prince, Machiavelli explains his rationale when arguing that political leaders may use deceit, cruelty, and strive to be feared in order to retain their power by using the examples of different Dukes and other political leaders. This paper will summarize The Prince and compare Machiavellis viewpoint with that of other philosophers.
Summary
Machiavellis book became a shock and novelty of the political thought of his era because of the controversial views on how a political leader should act. In Chapters 5 and 6 of The Prince, Machiavelli discloses the idea that a prince should focus on disuniting the citizens. This is necessary to ensure that they do not riot and take up arms as he who becomes master of the city used to be free and does not destroy her can expect to be destroyed by her (24). Thus, the use of power to gain and sustain political rulership is justified under the Machiavellian views. This is a realistic and calculated approach to retaining power over the territories where people may want to rebel.
Such actions as deceit and making calculated decisions in order to reach ones political goals are also justified under Machiavelli. For instance, when describing the Popes attempts to make his son a ruler, Machiavelli writes that the Pope was under a necessity of disturbing the situation and embroiling the states of Italy (29). On the other hand, Machiavelli mentions that the Pope had to act carefully since many other political figures in Italy did not want him to increase his power and influence. Hence, Machiavelli justified any means of gaining political power in his text.
Later on, Machiavelli described how the Duke viewed political leadership and actions he took after conquering Romagna. Since he believed his soldiers and generals to be disloyal to him (30). The Duke saw the early signs of this issue when attacking Bologna. Hence, Machiavelli shows examples of a pragmatic, realistic, and calculated ruler who mistrusts even his own army and is capable of replacing them with other forces in order to achieve their goals. Moreover, the calculated actions of a good ruler concern their decisions towards the potential threats. Machiavelli describes the Dukes attack on the Orsini family as he waited for a good chance to wipe out the Orsini family (30). Therefore, any means of retaining and protecting ones power are justified and viewed as normal under the viewpoint of this philosopher.
Beginning with chapter 15, Machiavelli starts to describe the ideal characteristics of a political leader, such as whether he should be feared or loved by the people. Machiavellis approach to political leadership excludes any potential consideration for morality or moral virtues since he argues that it is better to be feared and not viewed as merciful. According to Machiavelli, a prince, in order to hold his position, must acquire the power to be not good, and understand when to use it and not to use it (58). The author also reflects on the ideas of virtues and vices, arguing that practising the former may lead to the princes destruction.
Moreover, in his view, a prince can choose to break promises if doing this will serve their interest. In chapter 18, the philosopher explains that princes who did not value their promises achieved greater things when compared to those who did (64). He uses the examples of a fox and a lion, arguing that a prince should be both, to illustrate that a leader must recognize traps and be able to protect himself from them (Machiavelli, 65),
In contrast to the above-described characteristics, a prince should also ensure that the people do not begin to despise him because it is the best defence against riots or political instability. According to Machiavelli, although it is best to be feared than loved, a price strives only to avoid hatred (64). Next, managing ones reputation to gain the goodwill of the people is one of the strategies that political leaders should focus on, and this can be achieved, for example, by undertaking ambitious projects.
When comparing liberality and stinginess, Machiavelli argues that the former is not typically noticed by the people, which is why one should not practice it. Practising stinginess, however, is not viewed as negative because it allows building a strong economy and defending the state against enemies. Similarly, Machiavelli views cruelty as an abetter act when compared to mercifulness. The example of Borgia shows that the rulers cruelty can be beneficial for the state because it unites the people and forces them to organize (Machiavelli, 61).
Analysis
When comparing Machiavellis view of an ideal ruler, one can argue that this image is consistent with the modern perception of a tyrant. The prince, under Machiavellis views, must focus on his goals and achievements and use the means they perceive as necessary to achieve these goals. This includes suppressing the conquered, using deceit, and showing no mercy to the people. Although these qualities and behaviours are shocking, Machiavelli uses a plethora of examples in his book to support his rationale for the need to employ these specific characteristics and avoid being compassionate or liberal, including the Pope, Cesar, and Borgia. Hence, Machiavelli developed his views based on the examples he reviewed and the authors analysis of the different strategies a prince may use.
Moreover, the shocking nature of Machiavellis views becomes even more evident when comparing his views with those of Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas detailed the issue of rulers becoming tyrants in Chapter 6 of his work, and he argued that it is vital to work diligently to protect the people from kings lapsing into tyranny (208). This author also relies greatly on the Christian perspective and discusses the king of Israel and the need to establish systems that would prevent tyranny. Machiavelli, on the other hand, does not mention tyranny as his focus is solely on the characteristics and behaviours of the price and not the benefit of the people. Moreover, Aquinas argues that if excessive tyranny is intolerable , noblemen should unite to kill the tyrant, which shows some similarities to Machiavellis views on maintaining a good image in the eyes of the people (208).
Moreover, Machiavellis approach also differed from that of other philosophers, such as Thomas More, Erasmus, Hobbes, and Locke. Firstly, in Utopia, More argues that a political leader must be virtuous and has to care about the well-being of his people more than of their own. Hence, More emphasizes the moral qualities of a leader, in line with idealism, while Machiavelli believes that the leader can do anything as long as the goal is achieved. Moreover, the government of a utopian state would avoid the war at all costs, which is not true for Machiavelli, who decides several chapters to reviewing the conquest of different political leaders. Hence, the difference in views of Machiavelli and More is realism in opposition to idealism.
In the Praise of Folly, Erasmus argues focuses on the Christian perspective and criticizes Christianity and theologians, yet Erasmus was an idealist and believed that political leaders must also be philosophers. This is the primary difference between the authors views and those of Machiavelli since the latter believed that a prince must rely on brutal force rather than his philosophical capabilities. Next, Hobbes, in his Leviathan, argues for ideas similar to Machiavellis as both authors advocate for political realism. For example, Hobbes explains that the modern state is the result of a social contract because prior to its formation, people lived according to the natural law. Hence, people exchange their rights and freedoms to receive protection and support from the governments and political leaders in return. However, when comparing the two philosophers views, one can argue that Machiavellis prince could act regardless of the interest of the people, relying only on his own opinion of what is important and should be done.
Locke, in The Second Treatise of Government, advocates for liberal and idealistic views of a government, unlike Machiavelli. In fact, Lockes views are more in line with those of Hobbs because the former focuses on the state of nature and the social contract that led to the organization of governments. Hence, similar conflicts between the views of this philosopher and those of Machiavelli arise since the latter emphasized the importance of the prince and his decisions.
Arguably, Machiavellis views are controversial for a modern person due to the focus on liberalism and democracy and the importance of the moral virtues that a leader must possess. The authors theory emphasizes the right of a prince to act as he prefers, with an imitation of maintaining the publics preferable treatment to avoid conflicts or riots.
Conclusion
In summary, this paper is a summary and analysis of Machiavellis The Prince. In this text, the author outlines his approach towards viewing proper leadership of a newly conquered state by examining different examples, such as the Pope or Borgia. Machiavellis views are realistic because he tries to disclose the different character qualities that allow a prince to achieve their goals. However, these characteristics grant the prince authority and power that are close to tyranny.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.