11/19 The Prince (#12a)

Human Nature

Niccolo Machianelli in his work “The Prince” demonstrates the values and practices a good ruler should have . Machianelli believes that man is by nature dishonest. It can not be said that he believes man to be evil, because he at no time describes lying, cheating and manipulating as evil. He argues, a ruler can not be expected to be honest, when his subjects and citizens are not honest.

Manhianelli came to this understanding by observing the rulers of his day and rulers of the past. He uses Alexander as an example stating “Alexander did nothing else than deceive men” and ruled well. The important thing is not to have all the virtues, Manhianelli explains, but it is“very necessary to seem to have them.”

Virtues

Manhianelli contrasts and compares the value of different virtues. First, he evaluates the value of being liberal vs. stingy. To appear to be liberal is important for the up and coming prince, but dangerous for the ruling prince. To be too liberal will force a prince to give too much too his people. Being so generous will create a people too dependent on their ruler and will force the prince to raise taxes. So, it is better to be stingy. A stingy leader will be scorned for his selfishness, but does not create an unstable rule that might threaten his position. Second, he examines the value of being loved vs. feared. He explains that to be loved is a great position to be in, but an unstable one. For men will turn their back on love when in need or for selfish gain, but men find it much harder to ignore fear for their own gain and are more likely to be loyal in fear. In both cases Manhianelli gives strong arguments for his opinions.

I think while fear is more dependable and easier to gain, love is more powerful. Fear will motivate a man to comply to preserve his life at the threat of death, while love will drive a people to comply to the point of death.

Extra Credit

1. If Manhianelli had written about the rulers depicted in the ancient world he would have thought them to have been to ideological. Often the ancient ruler brought about their own demise out of gilt or shame of past sin. Manhianelli repeatedly states that a prince should do anything and everything he can to stay in power and there is no reason to be convicted of wrong doing because those acts are necessary to stay in power. Oedipus brought about his own fall, removing his eyes out of shame of his past sin. Manhianelli would have thought this needless. He would have said “so you killed your dad and married your mother, so what. Now your King, you can do whatever you want.”

2. If, Machiavelli had studied the good leaders of scripture who found more value in being virtuous than looking virtuous, he probably would have thought them to have lived in a more idealogical world. He would likely explain, if the virtues a prince should appear to have were truly used uncompromisingly, it would be political suicide and impossible in his day of political deceit and manipulation.