Thursday, March 12, 2015
Week Two: Makaveli
Machiavelli is one of the infamous 'bad boys' of philosophy (the hip hop artist Tupac Shakur reportedly studied Machiavelli while in jail and for a time went under the name Makaveli himself; supposedly President Richard Nixon kept a copy of The Prince on his night stand for bedtime reading). Is Machiavelli's fundamental stance towards politics (the place of power, the place of ethics, etc...) basically right or basically wrong? Defend your answer. (Throw in a few quotes from Machiavelli to support/illustrate your point--cite them with just the page number from our text in parentheses).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Machiavelli wrote about how rulers should rule in order to be successful. He compared rulers and what makes some rulers succeed and others fail. He said that the rulers with the most power were brutal and ruled with force. He states, "In the first case they invariably succeed ill, and accomplish nothing; but when they can depend on their own strength and are able to use force, they rarely fail" (105). Machiavelli makes good points in his writing. I think that his beliefs on rulers are basically right. Although, I do not agree that rulers in power need to be brutal in force to succeed, but I do believe there has to be some force. Without force, things can get out of hand and the ruler will fail. When a ruler looks out for the good of the people, then he could be over thrown, but Machiavelli says that sometimes princes or rulers cannot do this to succeed. He also discusses how rulers should be feared and loved. Being feared can have benefits, but should not be feared too much. He states, “The reply is 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, if one of the two has to be wanting”(120).
ReplyDeleteMachiavelli gives many examples of princes and rulers that succeeded through force. Moses was one of his examples. In his example, Moses had to use force to free the slaves. The slaves or Pharaoh did not listen to him at first so he had to use the force of God. Machiavelli is right in saying that Moses was successful because he used force. Moses was thinking about saving his people. He states, "It was thus necessary that Moses should find the people of Israel slaves in Egypt and oppressed by the Egyptians, so that they were disposed to follow him in order to escape from their servitude" (104). If rulers do not use force then they will have no power. If there is no force then the people will rule the ruler. The ruler does not need to rule with evil, but should rule with some force for the good of the people. I agree with many of Machiavelli’s points on how force can be important for a prince or ruler.
Machiavelli's fundamental stance towards politics is that he is only concerned with what is the most effective way power is used when ruling. Machiavelli has no interest in ethics only what is the most productive way to utilize his power. His ultimate goal is gaining and maintaining political legitimacy. One of the points he focuses on is how citizens need to fear their government, not hate, but fear. When rulers make their citizens hate them that is when the citizens conspire and remove that leader from power. Machiavelli states in his writings that “it is much safer to be feared than loved because love is preserved by the link of obligation which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage; but fear preserves you by a dread of punishment which never fails.” Machiavelli has no interest with his citizens compassion towards him, only what is effective in maintaining political legitimacy.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion I don't believe that in today's society that this system would work. Citizens have to be able to trust their government to operate in the best interest of the citizens and that is not plausible if the citizens are in fear of their government. Machiavelli makes good points on how to properly establish and maintain political legitimacy because he is a realist such as a ruler cannot be hated and that the ultimate goal should be legitimacy. However, compassion for the people has to exist or there is not a respect from the citizens towards the government. Machiavelli states that “Since love and fear can hardly exist together, if we must choose between them, it is far safer to be feared than loved”. People will choose love over fear because no one wants to constantly live in fear in my opinion.
Tyler Calhoun
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMachiavelli's suggested arrangement of politics is close to ideal in a perfect world, given that the leader is a just one as defined by Socrates in the Republic where the powerful's interest is for the good of the subject and the powerful is willing to rule the people the best he can (17). Because in its essence Machiavelli's suggestion is similar to a dictatorship and due to his great power such a ruler could use his resources (if led by a just ruler) to efficiently spread wealth and protect the people of the nation without threatening the safety of other nations. However such a just leader who isn't governed by self interests instead is very rarely seen in the world, as Middle East dictatorships provide many examples of this counter-argument.
ReplyDeleteIn his proposed way of rule, Machiavelli suggest that the ruler do whatever is necessary for him to keep his power hence my comparison to a dictatorship where the ruler can implement cruelty and laws to ensure he stays in his throne for a maximal period. However if the ruler’s only intent is for the good of his people then it would be desired by all for him to keep his throne and cruelty to some would be fairness to the general population. An example of this "whatever is necessary" argument is given by the success of Hannibal in keeping his diverse army united by his inhuman cruelty which made his soldiers fear him (121). Using this fear he lead his soldiers to act at his will, successfully leading conquest and increasing his power. From this idea Machiavelli also concludes that rulers should not fear implementing cruelty in order to unite his people as fear is more necessary for rule than love by the citizens because love can be conditional and have a time limit, whereas fear keeps people faithful infinitely, that faith and unity are the most important qualities of a nation facing war and therefore without a ruler that evokes a sense of fear in his peoples the nation will be weak and divided (119). He further suggests that the best method of rule is liberalism rather than a miserly ruler although not a strict sense of liberalism, as this would lead to the falling of the regime (117). Thus a ruler should be not be afraid to be seen as unfair because in the long run this will increase his power and people have greater respect for a powerful ruler rather than one that has used up all of its resources and cannot defend against an outside attack. For a perfectly fair ruler uses not the money of the citizens but only of his own resources, of which when he has ran out, his power starts to decline and is more prone to take over by foreign powers. An example of the benefits of niggardliness for rulers is seen with the rule of Pope Julius II, reputed for his liberalism to attain papacy did not act this way afterwards, acting greedy to save money, which paid off later as he needed not to tax citizens extra for war (118). Therefore the ability of a ruler to defend one’s nation is more important in the eye of the citizens in the long run than their attitudes towards the greedy display of the ruler.
Indeed power and a sense of fear is the most important quality of a ruler for he needs to have control of his people to guard them and allow them to have the most ordered way of life possible. Without this control there would be revolts by groups who felt they have knowledge of a better way of living and society would be chaotic. An example of this control is found even in religion, which many believe to be a tool for evoking fear for the purpose of control, as opposed to faith which is self found love of a higher being. However as mentioned this “whatever necessary” attitude needs to be balanced because if used by unjust rulers it is the worst way of governing and would lead to the suffering and oppression of the general public as seen in the Middle East.
- Fehmi Berkay
I find that Machiavelli’s stance toward politics, power, and ethics to be basically wrong. I believe that his viewpoint takes on a more realistic position of how to hold and maintain power instead of relating to us how a just and moral leader should govern. I have no doubt that the Machiavelli based his opinions on what he saw and was able to determine successful by the way of leading. But I believe this is inherently flawed because the principles he develops are based on the belief that the way man acts is the ultimate truth. In his chapter on whether it is better to be feared or loved he says; “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” (p. 120). I believe that this demonstrates his stance on which serves a better purpose in the course of politics, and not which is a better quality to possess as a human being. He also talks about the necessity to “…seem merciful, faithful, humane, sincere, religious, and also to be so; but you must have the mind so disposed that when it is needful to be otherwise you may be able to change to the opposite qualities” (p. 123). I find that this indicates once again Machiavelli’s understanding that this deceptive ability is useful more useful in political spheres rather than a description of how a person should conduct themselves in relation to others. To reiterate my view of Machiavelli’s stance on politics I believe that it is basically wrong. Not in the sense that he is incorrect in his observations but that his stance should be viewed as a summary of what is a successful way to negotiate your way through politics.
ReplyDeleteNice thoughtful responses so far. Keep up the good work.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jake that Machiavelli's stance is basically wrong because he takes on the perspective of that everyone is unjust in this society and not in the viewpoint of an ideal utopia. For example, using the quote from page 120 that Jake used he talks about the "chain of obligation" being broken because of selfishness. As that can be agreed on by many that many people have taken into a very selfish lifestyle over the course of the years, in a just society, man will not be selfish and the better option would for the leader to be loved by his people. Referencing back to "The Republic" by Plato earlier on the book this selfishness came along with the changing of government as generations passed and freedom and greediness becomes more common. This greed Machiavelli makes a point that greed leads to greatness. He says, "In our times we have seen nothing great done except by those who have been esteemed niggardly..." I agree with Machiavelli that this is true because human nature has became that people are more willing to do something if there is some sort of incentive out of it. No one will build a great nation if out of it they will become a poor beggar but instead in the desire to become rich and famous. With that said I do believe that Machiavelli is right about his viewpoint on the world works and that a leader needs to be feared along with loved to be successful but I believe it is not the just society that as the non-noble class we want to find in this world.
ReplyDeleteAnother point that Machiavelli makes is that the challenge is not to obtain the power but to maintain it. This, I agree with even in the society that we live in today. Leaders, good or bad, can be overthrown or rebelled against because of the wants of the citizens. The lower class can become unhappy about new laws and regulations that need to be put in place because they aren't in the interests of them. The leader, who in this situation could be making a just rule and helping out best of the State can be rebelled against and overthrown if the people do not fear him. Machiavelli says, "... they can be made to believe by force." So a leader can not be walked on by needs to intimidate and make his people fear him to keep his nation in control.
Throughout Machiavelli’s writing; I seen the comparisons he was making between different leaders and what constituted them as a good leader or a bad. I find most of his thoughts to be right. Machiavelli made a good point that “But to come to those who have become princes through their own merits and not by fortune, I regard as the greatest.” (104) An example from the book is when Machiavelli is speaking on Cyrus. “But regarding Cyrus and others who have acquired or founded their kingdoms, they will all be found worthy of admiration; and will not appear very different from those of Moses, although he had so great a Master”. I agree that these are the greater leaders. I see people in higher level positions who were granted the spot due to a person of who they knew not based on the skills needed to perform the job. A lot of what Machiavelli says is important is can be beneficial to a community.
ReplyDeleteHe also points out the effect of using force to win. “But when they can depend on their own strength and are able to use force, they rarely fail. Thus it comes about that all armed prophets have conquered and unarmed ones failed; for besides what has already been said, the character of peoples varies, and it is easy to persuade them of a thing, but different to keep them in that persuasion. And so it is necessary to order things so that when they no longer believe, they can be made to believe by force.” (105) What he is saying is that sometimes based on the given event, action- forceful action must be taken in order to keep or gain the position of power you are have.
First off in terms of political leaders, Machiavelli explains that people who come to power who lack prior experience of a leader will . He explains "Those who rise from private citizens to be princes merely by fortune have little trouble in rising but very much in maintaining there position." (106) In other words he is saying that somebody that comes to political power due to the fact that have have privileges of they are wealthy, often rise to power with ease but may not be able to maintain the power, as their inexperience can work against them. Machiavelli is indicating that the lack of political experience can prevent the knowledge needed to rule and keep peace over the people. Along with these ideas Machiavelli states that the governmental principles used within an area for a populace is determined by how the ruling body came to power. Whether the ruler comes to power through nobility or fortune or through an election of the populace the resulting government will be a response to this ruler. In terms of his ideas on political rulers i believe the Machiavelli's views are basically right. I believe that not everyone has the ability to rule. I believe having the skills to rule requires that training and experience and as it is shown in this reading that those without the experience, unless they are of true genius will struggle in maintaining rule. I also believe that the government depends on the ruler I agree as Machiavelli points out that rulers who are more or less elected by there peers to be a ruler will be more willing to serve their peers rather than themselves than a person that gains rule through nobility.
ReplyDeleteIn speaking of governing dominions who previously lived under their own laws, Machiavelli states three ways to govern them, "The first is to despoil them; the second is to go and live there in person; the third is to let them live under their own laws."(102) I believe that these views are consistent with government today. When a new power arises in an area they either assert their dominance, live along with what is present and gradually change things as they see fit, or simply to leave things as is. I think the response of the people within this place is based on the new ruler and his success in his method. With the ideas of a rulers success being dependent upon how he comes to rule, and with the idea of different ways that a ruler can keep a hold on a new territory, I feel that Machiavelli's views on politics are exactly right, and greatly reflected in the politics of today.
From Machiavelli's reading, I will conclude that his view on political power and ethics are unjust. His use of force and the misinterpreted use of the word "prudent" is what causes me to not agree with his philosophical mindset. to his defense (to and extent) I do understand that the time periods that he was in and where we are today are completely different and things may have been more acceptable in his time period (1469-1527) than it would be in ours. As a part of his philosophy, Machiavelli is all about not necessarily having power, but maintaining that power. One of his points early in this reading that he makes is that as a Prince, if you are trying to persuade somebody that has no belief in what you are saying, you need to use force to get what you want, which I do not agree with. Another point on page 103, Machiavelli believes that being a follower and not yourself. He states that "a prudent man should always follow in the path trodden by great men and imitate those who are most excellent, so that if he does not attain to their greatness, at any rate he will get some tinge of it." Although, I do agree with having role models and admiration's toward people and to be as successful as those people you look up to, but if you go directly in the same path as the ones you look up to, you have no chance in being yourself and finding out what and who you actually want to be. How can you be prudent, meaning somebody who is showing care for their future when you are living in the shadows of another?
ReplyDelete"With the utmost diligence I have long pondered and scrutinized the actions of the great...." (pg.101) In the "Prince" the philosopher
ReplyDeleteNiccolò Machiavelli wrote about how rulers gain power and the effective ways to maintain that power. The chapters from the "Prince" included in our book "Social and Political Philosophy" are chapters five through seven, nine through ten, and fifteen through nineteen. In the first part of the provided text, chapter five, he discusses how rulers could gain power over a state with their own laws and orders. In chapters six through nine (excluding eight) he talks about setting up a new state and gaining power through virtue (chapter 6), fortune (chapter 7), and through selection by one's own citizens (chapter 9). In chapter ten, he discusses how to judge the strength of states and to do this by examining if a state can defend itself or needs to rely on it's allies. Then through chapters fifteen through nineteen he talks about the qualities of a prince by mentioning the prince's reputation (chapter 15), generosity vs parsimony (chapter 16), cruelty vs mercy (chapter 17), prince's keeping their word (chapter 18), and avoiding contempt and hatred (chapter 19). As a whole, if wanting to run a nation state like a well oiled machine, I agree with Machiavelli's assessment on what makes a good leader. However, I believe in order to hold on to power for a long time one needs to show mercy and not hatred. Machiavelli on the other hand says that "....it is necessary for a prince, who wishes to maintain himself, to learn how not to be good...." (pg.116) He argues that because society is so far removed from the way we ought to live that ruling by pious qualities won't work. During his time (which was the mid 15th to early 16th century) and even today it is true that our world is chaotic but going along with the world's actions will not help our world become less chaotic. No authority figure has ever lasted forever but the ideas of authority figures can. We can be remembered for being good or evil but those who lead with the most peaceful qualities are more likely to have their ideas last longer and utilized. You could say it runs on a scale from most pious to most power hungry ideals. For example, the popes of the Catholic Church have gone on both sides of the scale but the popes who lead the most pious administrations are those who's ideas are still relevant in the future and beyond. For example, Pope John Paul II was considered a very peaceful pope and it has even been proposed that he be venerated and his ideas will likely live on for years to come. Another pope, by the name of Pope Stephen VI had his predecessor tortured and killed and was feared at the time of his papacy but he is little known today other than through papal scholars. In short, I believe Machiavelli's ideas work to be a good leader in the short term but not in the long term.
Machiavelli has a view on politics that looks for the most effective way in which to rule. When rating this, it cannot take into consideration whether or not the ruler was ethical. Even if an unpopular tyrant is in charge, he will be viewed as successful because of his effectiveness. This is evident in chapter 5 when Machiavelli is describing the acts of a prince who has just taken over a city that was previously under its own law. “And whoever becomes the ruler of a free city and does not destroy it, can expect to be destroyed by it, for it can always find a motive for rebellion in the name of liberty and of its ancient usages…” (103). From reading this, it would appear that Machiavelli’s suggestion would be to either enslave the people or at least completely destroy whatever system of government existed before the takeover. It is human nature to want to be free. If this group of people suddenly lost the freedom they previously held, then they will immediately fight back against a weak ruler. However, if the ruler does not give them that opportunity, then he will be able to do as he pleases with his newly acquired dominion.
ReplyDeleteThe position that Machiavelli takes on politics is extremely unlikely to be effective in the world currently. The section that I believe to be most relevant to today’s order of government would be chapter 9, titled “Of the Civic Principality.” Machiavelli states that this pertains to the case in which a ruler is elected by the people that he will rule. Unfortunately, Machiavelli’s theory does not work for our presidential elections. In his example, he tells that since the majority of the people would rather avoid oppression, the elected individual is one that will appear to be less likely to be corrupt. “For the aim of the people is more honest than that of the nobility, the latter desiring to oppress, and the former merely to avoid oppression.” (112) However, although this is in theory true for our elections, the popular vote does not make the final decision. It is the individuals in the Electoral College that have the deciding votes. Therefore, the leaders would actually prefer to put someone in power that does not work in favor of the majority of the population. Although presidential candidates will make commercials and speeches that would appear that they will fight for the common individual, this rarely turns out to be true. They work in the best interest of themselves and the people that directly got them the position.
Machiavelli poses an interesting stance on politics by being a great leader or a poor leader. He goes on to discuss the differences between a prince being favored by good fortune and a prince coming through their own merits (pg. 104). With this he has said that the greatest princes have been from their own merits and not by fortune such as Cyrus, Moses, and Romulus. These presumptuous leaders have been admired for what they grew up on and believed and making this the core of their leadership rather than those leaders that have had fortune all their lives. Each of these men faced great values and was able to “order things when they no longer believed in them and can make others believe by forcing them (pg. 105).” Now for the popular leaders with great fortune such as Darius weren’t as successful mainly because they were more focused on holding security on glory for the people rather than for the common good. They were great leaders but weren’t able to maintain their position for long mainly for the factor that they didn’t know how to command, they just knew how to be friendly and faithful.
ReplyDeleteMachiavelli goes on to describe the important values that a great prince must have and how they should posses them. He describes a leader to know the difference between good and evil. “It is necessary for a prince, who wishes to maintain himself, to learn how not to be good and to use this knowledge and not use it, according to the necessity of the case.” (pg 116) Here he describes that if one knows the main differences of good and evil then one will know when to posses those key features. There comes a time when using one or the other is important and if that person can distinguish this then he will be a great leader. Machiavelli also discusses whether it’s better to be feared than to be loved. He states “it is much safer to be feared than loved, if one of those two has to be wanting.” (pg 120) A good prince must be able to take the power into his own hands rather than the peoples. And to be loved you must be loved by the people therefore basically putting the power in the others hands, rather than if one is feared then they are putting the power into their own hands and having people fear what they decide. However, the prince must be able to know the difference from fear and hate. The prince can’t go too far into fearfulness because they will then be hated.
In the end I agree with Machiavelli’s points that he brings to the table with politics for the most part and I agree that to be a great leader one must know his limits on the people. However, I also believe that in order to be a great leader you must be loved from the people or else they will not obey you. So you have to have a happy medium from Machiavelli’s opposing opinions and his approving opinions.
I believe Machiavelli holds a rational and ethical view of how a government should function. He applies his thoughts to differing situations, such as how a prince came to power, the type of principality he runs and relationships with the citizens. Also he speaks with some wisdom as to how “prudent” ruler should “always follow in the path trodden by great men and imitate those who are most excellent, so that if he does not attain to their greatness, at any rate he will get some tinge of it.” (103 my book is an Ebook so page numbers could be different). The first and best type of ruler according to Machiavelli is the ruler who is a founder of their own kingdom, they have faced the appropriate challenges and will be in the best position to lead. It seems as though he supports the use of force or a “might makes right” mentality for certain situations; hence “all armed prophets have conquered and unarmed ones failed (104). After founding rulers he believes those who earn their position are much more effective than those who do not. I agree with this, most people who inherit their power or position can lack the skills and knowledge needed to be effective. We can observe this in both the political and economic spheres and just as Machiavelli states, “Unless he be a man of great genius it is not likely that one who has always lived in a private position should know how to command, and they are unable to maintain themselves because they possess no forces friendly and faithful to them” (106). He covers a wide range of instances, which cover different items, not just forceful leaders but also leaders who become “prince by favor of the populace” (111). In which he says leaders who come to power via the populous must maintain friendship, not merely power and might. Again, he seems to view things in a semi-general but rational view which can serve as a solid basis for political philosophy and theory.
ReplyDeleteFrom the reading of Machiavelli, I believe that his fundamental stance towards politics is right and wrong. On page 105 it states, "In the first case they invariably succeed ill, and accomplish nothing; but when they can depend on their own strength and are able to use force, they rarely fail." He is basically saying that a strong force from a leader has to be done to be successful. I think this is true but at the same time not true because having force is necessary but too much force is unnecessary. Force needs to be implemented so people follow rules and know the consequences if they do not but it does not need to be excessive to where is can harm someone. When force is implemented it also prevents people from trying to over throw the person of power and keeps order in the town. This is important in that it keeps a place functioning and growing together.
ReplyDeleteMachiavelli has an interesting stance towards his beliefs on politics. One of his main points is what makes a great ruler. For Machiavelli a great ruler is one who takes advance of a opportunity presented to them by nature. He states that "those who have become princes through their own merits and not by fortune, I regard as the greatest"pg.105. To Machiavelli one of these great merits would be the ability to lead by force. He points out that the greatest leaders force those under them to abide by the rules that the ruler has created. "When they can rely on their own strength and use force, they rarely fail."pg.105. If a ruler uses this force they are going to be an effective leader. This effectiveness is crucial in order for one to be able to be able to remain a ruler. It would appear that the force Machiavelli is talking about is to basically strip the people of their rights and the ruler create their own government with a different set of rules.
ReplyDeleteI would have to say that in today's world this would be an ineffective way to rule. Although I do think there needs to be some force used by government to keep order and stability, it is important for citizens to have a say in what goes on in government.. It is important for citizens to be able to trust their government. Machiavelli makes a good point by stating it is important for a ruler to not be hated by his people and for this to happen they have to have the element of trust.
I believe that Machiavelli's fundamental stance on politics is basically right. Machiavelli believes that a ruler needs to show balance in all characteristics in order to be successful. One should not be to cruel or to merciful, to fierce or to high spirited, to religious or a non believer. For example a leader that is to merciful could be seen as weak and easily be overthrown by his followers, while if a ruler is to cruel he while be hated and rebellion can occur. Machiavelli speaks on how all great leaders come from taking advantage of an opportunity that presents itself in order to make their way into leadership. "and the difficulties which they have in acquiring their dominions arise in part from the new rules and regulations that they have to introduce in order to establish their position securely." pg105. Leaders that worked their way into a leadership roles better understand the difficulties it takes to lead compared to someone that is handed leadership through fortune. My favorite view Machiavelli presents is on How The Strength Of All States Should Be Measured. This view talks about how a leader should not over extend the ability of his people. "A prince, therefore, who possesses a strong city and does not make himself hated, cannot be assaulted." pg115. This show that the leader cares about his people and would rather protect the community that he has rather than risk the safety of his people for wealth or resources. In conclusion I believe Machiavelli preaches that leaders need to show good balance in all aspects of life in order to be successful.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Machiavelli's fundamental stance on politics are basically wrong. For his time period the beliefs that he might have worked successfully in regards to ruling and maintaining power, but from a universal standpoint it wouldn't be ideal. I would have to say that he didn't have ethical values and that his stance was based solely on using power to forcefully rule over people to keep them in line, rather than governing a society by being an influential leader. Machiavelli suggest, "It is much safer to be feared than love...fear is maintained by a dread of punishment which never fails (120)." He didn't believe that the people should love their political leader, for it made the leader weak. He believed that it was important to instill fear to create an image of intimidation and heavy punishment for wrongdoing, this creates more power. This idea seems to have been successful for some rulers, but would be highly unethical in today's society.
ReplyDelete