The Science of Machiavelli Machiavelli’s analytical tone and calculating demeanor, along with relevant historical examples to back up his claims, make his approach to politics extremely scientific. He sets up a foundation of effective practices for leaders to utilize, and his lack of concern for moral issues allow his work to transcend older political thought. He focuses on the preservation of the state as the main objective of a leader, and he advocates all means necessary to achieve that goal. The first scientific aspect of Machiavelli’s work that differentiates it from other political discourse is the fact that he thinks religion should have no place in the workings of a government. This concern for human interests and human workings
…show more content…
He raises the question of whether it is better for a leader to be loved or feared by the public. He answers with the statement, “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” (69). Machiavelli backs up this statement by saying that a leader who is feared can make decisions and execute orders much more effectively. He thinks a prince should be trusting to a certain degree, but should always be prepared for disaster, saying, “And the prince who has relied solely on their words, without making other preparations, is ruined…” (69). Machiavelli’s thought initially seems negative, as he lacks faith in the public to remain loyal to their prince. This distrust, however, is vital to Machiavelli’s end goal. He demonstrates the effectiveness of this method by providing the historical example of Scipio of Spain, “... whose armies rebelled against him in Spain, which arose from nothing but his excessive kindness, which allowed more license to the soldiers than was consonant with military discipline” (70). By drawing from this historical example, he proves that it is ultimately much more beneficial for the entire nation for a leader to have some distrust in their citizens. Throughout The Prince, Machiavelli creates many different rules for a leader to follow, but he
He raises the question of whether it is better for a leader to be loved or feared by the public. He answers with the statement, “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” (69). Machiavelli backs up this statement by saying that a leader who is feared can make decisions and execute orders much more effectively. He thinks a prince should be trusting to a certain degree, but should always be prepared for disaster, saying, “And the prince who has relied solely on their words, without making other preparations, is ruined…” (69). Machiavelli’s thought initially seems negative, as he lacks faith in the public to remain loyal to their prince. This distrust, however, is vital to Machiavelli’s end goal. He demonstrates the effectiveness of this method by providing the historical example of Scipio of Spain, “... whose armies rebelled against him in Spain, which arose from nothing but his excessive kindness, which allowed more license to the soldiers than was consonant with military discipline” (70). By drawing from this historical example, he proves that it is ultimately much more beneficial for the entire nation for a leader to have some distrust in their citizens. Throughout The Prince, Machiavelli creates many different rules for a leader to follow, but he