Growing up in such a tumultuous era allowed Niccolò Machiavelli to examine many cases of the rise and subsequent fall of short-lived governments as well as their causes, such as constantly changing alliances. These experiences led to a cynical view of human nature along with a clear understanding of the objectionable behavior necessary to retain power in politics. His career as a politician and diplomat cemented his very pragmatic stance on human nature and the nature of politics, both of which are described throughout The Prince. Unlike fellow philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle, who preferred to hypothesize based on ideals, Machiavelli held the contentious belief that a separation between politics and moral philosophy was the necessary
…show more content…
“... One would like to be both, but as it is difficult to combine love and dear, if one has to choose between them it is far safer to be feared than loved” (Machiavelli, p. 78). The reason fear is safer relates back to his Machiavelli’s basic principle that humans are ultimately governed by self-preservation; therefore, “because love is held in place by the chains of obligation, which, as men are evil, will quickly be broken if self-interest is at state. But fear is held in place by a dread of punishment, which one can always rely on” (Machiavelli, p. 79). It is unrealistic to assume or expect a person would act in a way disadvantageous to his or her own goals and ambitious. So with this in mind, a nearly foolproof way to guarantee a behavior is to make it either most beneficial or, at least, least detrimental to themselves to act accordingly. This tactic is mentioned in a variety of instances, including as a way to get an army to willingly and whole-heartedly march into battle and to keep subjects united and loyal for the greater good of the …show more content…
72). In other words, we would like to believe that humans always act on behalf of goodness and the benefit of others, but as history has proven numerous times, this is simply not the case. Ideally, loyalty would be unwavering and laws would govern suffice, eliminating the need to resort to force. It is for this precise reason that Machiavelli adopts the contentious beliefs still debated today. His views are not necessarily cynical, but a product of the reality of his
“... One would like to be both, but as it is difficult to combine love and dear, if one has to choose between them it is far safer to be feared than loved” (Machiavelli, p. 78). The reason fear is safer relates back to his Machiavelli’s basic principle that humans are ultimately governed by self-preservation; therefore, “because love is held in place by the chains of obligation, which, as men are evil, will quickly be broken if self-interest is at state. But fear is held in place by a dread of punishment, which one can always rely on” (Machiavelli, p. 79). It is unrealistic to assume or expect a person would act in a way disadvantageous to his or her own goals and ambitious. So with this in mind, a nearly foolproof way to guarantee a behavior is to make it either most beneficial or, at least, least detrimental to themselves to act accordingly. This tactic is mentioned in a variety of instances, including as a way to get an army to willingly and whole-heartedly march into battle and to keep subjects united and loyal for the greater good of the …show more content…
72). In other words, we would like to believe that humans always act on behalf of goodness and the benefit of others, but as history has proven numerous times, this is simply not the case. Ideally, loyalty would be unwavering and laws would govern suffice, eliminating the need to resort to force. It is for this precise reason that Machiavelli adopts the contentious beliefs still debated today. His views are not necessarily cynical, but a product of the reality of his