1. Why does Machiavelli caution a prince against being too generous? Machiavelli, in Chapters 15 of The Prince, explains that nature doesn’t allow perfection in any human being. This leads him to the conclusion that princes should avoid qualities that may hindrance their abilities to rule even if they are considered ‘good’, under which generosity can be grouped as. He speaks further in detail in the next chapter, when he says generosity is a ‘dangerous practice’.
He explains that if a prince were to act too generous it would lead to having a reputation for it. This would cause increased taxes all over the prince’s realm, a depleted treasury, and a lower approval by his subjects as a result over all. This lack of loyalty from subjects would create a field in which the prince can no longer navigate when making decisions and lead to his own downfall.
Machiavelli later details how a true prince should act and why; he should be careful with his expenses and, though he will be called miserly at first, use of money from the treasury to defend his lands, create new business that will increase revenues for his subjects over all without extra taxation, and ultimately grow a reputation for being generous with no negative effects. This is a plus for the ruler and leads to greater loyalty from his subjects and higher approval rating, just by doing the exact opposite.
All of the examples and circumstances detailed in the two chapters lead to the main verdict that princes should refrain from developing a reputation for generosity because of its toxic and adverse nature that spurs hatred and leads to the implosion of the state, as well as the positive effects being frugal can have.
2. Explain why Machiavelli thinks it is safer for a prince to be feared by his subjects, rather than loved by them. Machiavelli continually explains that human nature is a cause for many human actions; this includes the fact that humans are fickle, self interested, and switch their devotion quickly. This type of action, when done by his subjects, can inhibit the prince’s abilities to rule because of his subject’s faltering loyalty. This is the reality of love; it can come and go, be taken for granted, and Machiavelli expresses that an overly compassionate prince would create a loving and easy going vibe and, in result, cause his subjects to have too much liberty to do what they please, creating disorder in the kingdom. This type of love will also cause any loyal subjects to quickly turn their backs in times of need. However, fear is omnipresent and deep; it has the ability to control human action like no other emotion.
Fear, in a sense that does not create hatred, can confirm a citizen’s loyalties quickly and keeps them in line. This benefits the prince more than being loved; it allows him to not only bypass the hassle of loyalties, but also makes effective government more attainable. If you were a king (or the president of a company or other type of leader), would you rather be loved or feared? Explain your answer. In an ideal world, such that also described by Machiavelli, 1 would like a balance between fear and love such that those | govern respect me, do not take me for granted, but also understand that I still am down to earth.
But, if a circumstance comes in which I must act in a way that will change the public’s opinion, I would do what ever is needed most in the situation in order to advanced even if it would lead to the public fearing far more than loving me. When put in a high position of power, faltering loyalties aren’t appreciated and can be destructive. But, with mutual respect between head of state and citizen, boss and employee, or leader in follower, it can lead to great success for both all individuals involved.
3. Why does Machiavelli believe that it is justifiable for a prince to break his word? Do you agree with him? Why or why not? When left with the fate of an entire nation, one must be able to make sure they can provide the best future for his or her subjects. Truths such as this mean that rulers must be readily able to change their conduct when the moment arises, including breaking promises. Keeping promises in dire circumstances may hinder the ruler’s ability to act and render them useless, whereas an occasional broken word may save an entire nation. Machiavelli provides the models of the lion and the fox; the lion is loyal and truthful, while the fox is cunning and misleading.
He explains that great princes will balance the qualities of both by keeping their followers in respect, like the lion, but also avoiding any traps, like the fox. He also includes the aspect of human nature in his argument; again, humans are fickle and can often go back on their word or loyalties. This means that the prince needs to be able to readily react to any thing coming his way, even if it means changing his original stances. If there is no respect from others in regard to keeping word, the prince Machiavelli’s justification, but still believe that rulers should only deviate from their word in the more dire circumstances. Otherwise, he or she will be seen as untrustworthy and undesirable in office. But when dire circumstances are present, quick reaction resulting in promises being broken is completely justified.
4. A prince “should not deviate from what is good if he can avoid it, but he should be ready and able to do evil when it is necessary. ” Do you agree with this? Why or why not? Tagree; individuals should always strive to do what is right in their lives, but what is right isn’t always what is good. In order to achieve success, some steps that can be considered unmoral are necessary.
In particular, when in a position of power where any and all actions and inactions are reflected on by an entire population, some evil is necessary in order for the nation to progress effectively and increase their stance in the world. The occasional act of evil is necessary for guard against threats, preserve the state, and preserve interests. As Machiavelli explained, princes are successful when their methods match what is needed during the time; this type of success can only be achieved through constantly shifting methods that may blur the lines between good and evil.
And, human nature doesn’t allow for any single individual to be perfect and have every quality of the ‘better’ type. All people, even rulers, have qualities that considered shameful. Therefore, rulers aren’t perfect individuals and are capable of committing evil with consequences. But the amount of power given to them means that they must be more careful of their decisions, which means those types of infractions should be mostly avoided.
5. What is Machiavelli’s opinion of humankind and human nature? How does that influence his ideas on how a prince should act? Throughout the work, Machiavelli explains that human beings have certain tendencies when dealing with their own lives as well as dealing with other humans which are ingrained in them simply because they are human – tendencies that are in the nature and development of human beings over all. He includes the realities such that no individual can achieve perfection or have every single quality labeled ‘good’, that human beings often taken what is given to them for granted and misuse it, and that humans are only devoted to others when they have their own self-interest.
Keeping these ideas in mind, Machiavelli then explains that rulers should anticipate that these natures are inherent in humans and should work around them in order to be the most productive. This includes going against the grain when making decisions, ignoring backlash to actions or inactions, not wholeheartedly trusting anyone, and welcoming fear and reverence. Without these types of realizations, rulers may make bad decisions balanced only on trust in themselves or others, which can ultimately lead to their downfall and the downfall of their domain. 6. How is Ferdinand of Aragon a good example of “Machiavellian” principles?
Even as a new ruler, Ferdinand’s actions showed those of Machiavelli’s idea of a great ruler; he put his political interests before any other interest when he attacked Grenada and drove the Moors out of Europe. This laid his military foundations and later political foundations. He continued to astonish his followers by invading other large states and keep them in fear of him through his rule – something Machiavelli said was beneficial. One of Ferdinand’s main actions that made him successful was that he developed his reputation over everything else and kept his own interests alive, shown when he continued to invade. Moreover, Machiavelli explains that princes will always be successful if their mechanisms fit the changing time periods, something that Ferdinand was able to embrace and led him to being a great leader under Machiavelli’s interpretation.
7. If Machiavelli were to observe politics and politicians in the United States today, what do you think his reaction would be? Explain your answer. At at the time in which Machiavelli was alive, politics weren’t quite as complicated and monarchies seemed like the best option.
If Machiavelli saw our current system today, which involves both the public and has an overall head of state, he wouldn’t be able to apply his suggestions to it because of its largely democratic and republican nature. His time period didn’t see much of this type of government: therefore, his opinions don’t take into account the fact that it can exist. Perhaps he would enjoy that every citizen has a role in the government without creating chaos and, though it takes more time, that good decisions in government are made that the public can accept. From his perspective in The Prince, however, Machiavelli would most likely dislike our system.
In the United States, presidents are expected to appeal to the masses rather than make direct decisions themselves, with voters and congressmen influencing their decisions at any given moment. This type of influence, according to Machiavelli, holds back the president’s ability to make the right decision in the right moment because he or she doesn’t have the authority to do whatever is best for the nation just because some will disagree with it. The US’s politics prize likeability and give the president power accordingly, an idea that Machiavelli directly struck down on the claim that it leads to ineffective government.
Machiavelli argues that rulers should have the freedom to make the right decision without taking into consideration how he will be perceived as a result of it, otherwise it will only lead to his or her own downfall. Yet, if a U. S. president were to follow such conduct, it would immediately lead to his or her impeachment from office and an infamous legacy as a failure during their presidency. The system of checks and balances and the approval system of presidents in the U. S. creates an omnipresent constriction of abilities for the president, which goes direc