As this is not the case, leaders are forced to beat evil doers at their own game when necessary. From this one would conclude that Machiavelli is a promoter of amoralism, but as we will see he does have respect for some goals beyond only power and stability.
In this instance he simply felt being feared was the safer alternative. In addition to trying to outsmart those who would do evil against the prince, the prince should also make efforts to discourage future acts of evil by others, and subsequently prevent future necessitation of his own harsh acts: Superficially, this statement brings Machiavelli in line with political philosophers such as Karl Marx, The amoral prince view class conflict as an inevitable aspect of civilized society.
While any prince can achieve and maintain power, glory remains a more elusive goal. For consistency with the premise that maintenance of power is the end goal, any loss of it would seem the ultimate shame.
So it is necessary for a ruler, if he wants to hold on to power, to learn how not to be The amoral prince, and to know when it is and when it is not necessary to use this knowledge.
Instead of worrying about his own morals, the leader needs to instead worry about their absence in others: For that matter, it can be argued that there are other more subtle ways to win support than cruelty and benevolence. Instead, glory is something that should be sought, and shame avoided, in quantity.
First Africa rebelled, and then the senate and the whole population of Rome; soon all Italy was conspiring against him. Glory and reputation then seem to be partly a search for a lasting memory of greatness within the public consciousness, not just for the preservation of the state.
Thus, he will be doubly glorious… just as he is doubly shamed who, being born a ruler, has lost power through lack of skill in ruling 73 Here it is notable that glory and its inverse, shame are quantified. Consequently, in describing the great struggle between commoners and nobles, Machiavelli does not side with either group.
Anyone who wants to act the part of a good man in all circumstances will bring about his own ruin, for those he has to deal with will not all be good.
There is still an implication that it is better to have power without glory, than it is to have neither. The appearance of morals has its own important ends, of causing the populace to respect their ruler, but this is not the same as being an actually moral person.
Evil for the sake of itself is actively discouraged. Accomplishing X entails either method Y or method Z. Y is preferable to Z, so a prince should choose method Y. But he also admits that the two are not equal in honor or glory, and, perhaps, even moral worth.
Machiavelli is more than the amoral pragmatist he is sometimes made out to be. For the leader though, power is always a consideration, and subsequently morals are never the most pressing goal.
A prince then, once he has attained his power, must have moral considerations at heart. Were these simply means to state stability, it is expected that a ruler should achieve exactly as much as is necessary. And it may be possible that there are other, more various factions within cities besides commoners and nobles.
Machiavelli does obviously have some moral compass, as he feels that good actions do have a value over evil actions when power is not a consideration. Rather, it is one of a number of challenges that a prince must learn to negotiate if he is to be successful. By such means one can acquire power but not glory.Is The Prince moral, immoral or amoral?
Most people who have heard of Niccolò Machiavelli would associate the Florentine with unscrupulous ness and deceitful ness, which they feel, is epitomised in his pamphlet, The Prince.
- Prince Hamlet Versus Machiavelli's Prince The Prince is a celebrated and highly controversial piece of work by the Italian aristocrat Niccolo Machiavelli. His work is a summation of all the qualities a prince must have in order to remain in his position. The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli Summary Why did Niccolo Machiavelli write the prince?
He wrote it like a guide. The Prince is an analysis of how to acquire and keep political power.
Philosophers wrote it as how it should be, but. If you are amoral, you're not a jerk, you just don't know that what you're doing is wrong. In the s, Robert Louis Stevenson, author of Dr.
Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (among other treasures), coined the word amoral to differentiate from immoral.
Michael White Is Machiavelli’s view of politics amoral? Is Machiavelli's view of politics amoral? There has been a resurgence of interest in the works of Nicollo Machiavelli () over the last century, and in particular in his most famous book Il.
The above question calls for an opinion, and I don't think your teacher wants my opinion of the Prince in terms of practicality or amorality.
he/she wants your opinion. Thus, I am attaching a link to a discussion forum on the above subject.Download