Is Machiavelli’s The Prince an amoral book, an immoral book, or neither? Fully discuss, illustrating your answer with ideas from the book.
Machiavelli has gained a reputation of a cold-hearted, ruthless and cynical man mainly based on his famous book: “The prince”. The book itself is generally considered either immoral or amoral. May my audacious affirmation be excused, but I think that these statements have been made by a superficial approach. I strongly insist that this book is neither immoral nor amoral. This book conceals far more profound meaning to make this kind of clichés. Let me confirm my point of view, further making some quotations from the book.
First of all, I would like to make a reference to Machiavelli’s ability to undercover …show more content…
He states that that a prince should be good as long as that goodness is politically useful. He should avoid those vices that lead to the kind of disgrace that could precipitate a fall from power, but while he should try to avoid those vices that are not as damaging, if he cannot prevent them, he is allowed to indulge them. According to Machiavelli virtue is often just a sham, true virtue is not seen and has no ulterior motive, whereas visible virtue is often exhibited only so that the prince may be loved and maintain a virtuous reputation. An excess of “good” can actually lead to harm and if the prince needs to be cruel to keep his subjects united and loyal, so be it. Cruelty can serve the greater good. Machiavelli points out two ways to keep his state in order: with laws, and with force. He describes the first method as human, and the second as the method of beasts. And when the first method does not suffice a prince needs to rely on the second. When it comes to the theory of beasts, two models exist: the lion, which represents brute force and strength, and the fox, which represents wiliness. A prince needs both, for one without the other will lead only to ruin. Machiavelli insists that “a prudent prince cannot and should not keep his word when to do so would go against his interest.” To be crafty and to be able to deceive, the mythical hallmarks of the fox, are utterly essential for any ruler. You can break promises and treaties …show more content…
According to it the better state is the one that uses its own troops, and that resists too much outside influence. The better prince is the one who rises by his own force, rather than by the help of friends or by good luck. Machiavelli is a huge admirer of intelligence. Not surprisingly, the one person, who may be considered as Machiavelli’s ideal ruler through the whole book is Cesare Borgia. Seems like Borgia had all the qualities that Machiavelli praises. He had the ability to be self-sufficient and to be ruthless when necessary. He was not indecisive and did not rely on luck. “There was one man who showed glimpses of greatness, the kind of thing that made you think he was sent by God for the country's redemption” writes Machiavelli with unhidden regard. To my mind, the reason why Machiavelli was so delighted with Borgia was that he considered him as an equally intelligent and cunning man, a soulmate. Borgia was to some extent his reflection. Their visions were quite similar. Machiavelli was approve of all the decisions that Borgia made, except for maybe the last one concerning the new pope. He insists that the only thing that turned him down at the end was bad luck. Here is Machiavelli’s description: “an extraordinary run of bad
Machiavelli has gained a reputation of a cold-hearted, ruthless and cynical man mainly based on his famous book: “The prince”. The book itself is generally considered either immoral or amoral. May my audacious affirmation be excused, but I think that these statements have been made by a superficial approach. I strongly insist that this book is neither immoral nor amoral. This book conceals far more profound meaning to make this kind of clichés. Let me confirm my point of view, further making some quotations from the book.
First of all, I would like to make a reference to Machiavelli’s ability to undercover …show more content…
He states that that a prince should be good as long as that goodness is politically useful. He should avoid those vices that lead to the kind of disgrace that could precipitate a fall from power, but while he should try to avoid those vices that are not as damaging, if he cannot prevent them, he is allowed to indulge them. According to Machiavelli virtue is often just a sham, true virtue is not seen and has no ulterior motive, whereas visible virtue is often exhibited only so that the prince may be loved and maintain a virtuous reputation. An excess of “good” can actually lead to harm and if the prince needs to be cruel to keep his subjects united and loyal, so be it. Cruelty can serve the greater good. Machiavelli points out two ways to keep his state in order: with laws, and with force. He describes the first method as human, and the second as the method of beasts. And when the first method does not suffice a prince needs to rely on the second. When it comes to the theory of beasts, two models exist: the lion, which represents brute force and strength, and the fox, which represents wiliness. A prince needs both, for one without the other will lead only to ruin. Machiavelli insists that “a prudent prince cannot and should not keep his word when to do so would go against his interest.” To be crafty and to be able to deceive, the mythical hallmarks of the fox, are utterly essential for any ruler. You can break promises and treaties …show more content…
According to it the better state is the one that uses its own troops, and that resists too much outside influence. The better prince is the one who rises by his own force, rather than by the help of friends or by good luck. Machiavelli is a huge admirer of intelligence. Not surprisingly, the one person, who may be considered as Machiavelli’s ideal ruler through the whole book is Cesare Borgia. Seems like Borgia had all the qualities that Machiavelli praises. He had the ability to be self-sufficient and to be ruthless when necessary. He was not indecisive and did not rely on luck. “There was one man who showed glimpses of greatness, the kind of thing that made you think he was sent by God for the country's redemption” writes Machiavelli with unhidden regard. To my mind, the reason why Machiavelli was so delighted with Borgia was that he considered him as an equally intelligent and cunning man, a soulmate. Borgia was to some extent his reflection. Their visions were quite similar. Machiavelli was approve of all the decisions that Borgia made, except for maybe the last one concerning the new pope. He insists that the only thing that turned him down at the end was bad luck. Here is Machiavelli’s description: “an extraordinary run of bad