Research Paper On Machiavelli
Jameela Ismail
Professor Pitanza
ENG 151
2/29/15
Machiavellian Cruelty is not required to rule, but in some cases it may be veiled as a way to continue ruling. In a position of power, no one should have the right to exploit people’s weaknesses and use their own standing to get people to do what they want. A ruler is responsible for their people. A ruler is responsible for maintaining peace and stability. Niccolò Machiavelli, the Italian Renaissance philosopher and diplomat, states that a person who is morally good would not remain in office for too long because you are dealing with the mass of the people. He then goes on to say that it is acceptable to lie, deceit, and scheme your people to remain in power. Thomas Hobbes is an English philosopher …show more content…
Niccolò Machiavelli was a very cynical person, which meant he always looked for the worst in people rather than the best. He quotes from his book, “Whether it is better to be loved than to be feared, or the contrary. I reply that one should like to be both one and the other; but since it is difficult to join them together, it is much safer to be feared then to be loved when of the two must be lacking.” Machiavelli would much rather be feared by his people than loved and looked at in a positive view. He would lie and deceive his people if that meant gaining more power. He believed that a prince should not have to worry about being cruel when it meant keeping his people loyal and united. A prince must know how to use this virtue of generosity in a way that would not harm him. In addition, Machiavelli says that a prince has to maintain his reputation but do it in a subtle manner. This means that he has to burden his people with taxes and raising funds to seem impoverished because that will result in his generosity. In comparison to this, he says that generous leader is damaging such as Julius Caesar. He was generous and his people knew he was and that lead to his death. According to …show more content…
Ruling a society comes with many hardships and tough decisions. Machiavelli and Hobbes both had very different views on how to govern. Machiavelli felt that being cruel was necessary in order to maintain stability. He wanted to enforce fear into the people because that would scare them into obeying him. Hobbes was a very intelligent man who believed in natural rights. Hobbes said to “Obey government authorities to avoid bloodshed and corruption. He felt that people deserved to have a good ruler who was honest because the people deserved that. These two different philosophies are interesting due to the debate on being cruel and fair. Machiavelli felt that being fair did not matter because one person already had all the power. Ruling a society means that there is a balance between the people and those who hold the higher powers. There must be trust and room for change if something goes on. The modern form of democracy is a good example of this because it enforces the Bill of Rights and basic
Professor Pitanza
ENG 151
2/29/15
Machiavellian Cruelty is not required to rule, but in some cases it may be veiled as a way to continue ruling. In a position of power, no one should have the right to exploit people’s weaknesses and use their own standing to get people to do what they want. A ruler is responsible for their people. A ruler is responsible for maintaining peace and stability. Niccolò Machiavelli, the Italian Renaissance philosopher and diplomat, states that a person who is morally good would not remain in office for too long because you are dealing with the mass of the people. He then goes on to say that it is acceptable to lie, deceit, and scheme your people to remain in power. Thomas Hobbes is an English philosopher …show more content…
Niccolò Machiavelli was a very cynical person, which meant he always looked for the worst in people rather than the best. He quotes from his book, “Whether it is better to be loved than to be feared, or the contrary. I reply that one should like to be both one and the other; but since it is difficult to join them together, it is much safer to be feared then to be loved when of the two must be lacking.” Machiavelli would much rather be feared by his people than loved and looked at in a positive view. He would lie and deceive his people if that meant gaining more power. He believed that a prince should not have to worry about being cruel when it meant keeping his people loyal and united. A prince must know how to use this virtue of generosity in a way that would not harm him. In addition, Machiavelli says that a prince has to maintain his reputation but do it in a subtle manner. This means that he has to burden his people with taxes and raising funds to seem impoverished because that will result in his generosity. In comparison to this, he says that generous leader is damaging such as Julius Caesar. He was generous and his people knew he was and that lead to his death. According to …show more content…
Ruling a society comes with many hardships and tough decisions. Machiavelli and Hobbes both had very different views on how to govern. Machiavelli felt that being cruel was necessary in order to maintain stability. He wanted to enforce fear into the people because that would scare them into obeying him. Hobbes was a very intelligent man who believed in natural rights. Hobbes said to “Obey government authorities to avoid bloodshed and corruption. He felt that people deserved to have a good ruler who was honest because the people deserved that. These two different philosophies are interesting due to the debate on being cruel and fair. Machiavelli felt that being fair did not matter because one person already had all the power. Ruling a society means that there is a balance between the people and those who hold the higher powers. There must be trust and room for change if something goes on. The modern form of democracy is a good example of this because it enforces the Bill of Rights and basic