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. There is still an implication that it is better to have power without glory, than it is to have neither.
And it may be possible that there are other, more various factions within cities besides commoners and nobles. Ethics Machiavelli presents his stance on morality first through his rejection of morality as a viable framework, and second through his promotion of virtu, glory, and reputation, which brings considerations outside of the amoral nature of the search for power.
So it is necessary for a ruler, if he wants to hold on to power, to learn how not to be good, and to know when it is and when it is not necessary to use this knowledge. Y is preferable to Z, so a prince should choose method Y. For the leader though, power is always a consideration, and subsequently morals are never the most pressing goal.
Consequently, in describing the great struggle between commoners and nobles, Machiavelli does not side with either group. 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.
Glory and reputation then seem to be partly a search for The amoral prince lasting memory of greatness within the public consciousness, not just for the preservation of The amoral prince state. More fundamentally, Machiavelli does not see class conflict as a driving force behind political structures.
By such means one can acquire power but not glory. His own army turned against him… Seing so many united against him, they lost their fear of him and killed him. Although Machiavelli is primarily concerned with how princes perform as rulers, he also gives an assessment of the different kinds of princes.
He regularly rejects morality as a necessity, opting instead generally for that which creates stability. Instead of worrying about his own morals, the leader needs to instead worry about their absence in others: First Africa rebelled, and then the senate and the whole population of Rome; soon all Italy was conspiring against him.
A prince then, once he has attained his power, must have moral considerations at heart. Superficially, this statement brings Machiavelli in line with political philosophers such as Karl Marx, who view class conflict as an inevitable aspect of civilized society.
For consistency with the premise that maintenance of power is the end goal, any loss of it would seem the ultimate shame. Rather, it is one of a number of challenges that a prince must learn to negotiate if he is to be successful.
Accomplishing X entails either method Y or method Z. In this instance he simply felt being feared was the safer alternative.
It is clear that Machiavelli has higher priorities than the moral actions of the prince.
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. Were these simply means to state stability, it is expected that a ruler should achieve exactly as much as is necessary.
One might ask, for example, whether there are other ways of becoming a prince besides prowess, fortune, crime, and favor. Instead, glory is something that should be sought, and shame avoided, in quantity. While any prince can achieve and maintain power, glory remains a more elusive goal. Machiavelli is more than the amoral pragmatist he is sometimes made out to be.
Is it better The amoral prince be loved than feared, or vice versa? Yes, Machiavelli does teach us that evil acts are occasionally necessary, but purely as a means towards the stable foundation that allows a ruler to lead with success and morality.
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: Whether a prince uses cruelty or benevolence to obtain that support is secondary to the necessity of gaining the support itself.
Prior examples have shown glory, virtu and reputation is merely another means to an end, not an end in itself, but there are quite a few hints that glory is something to be sought for its own sake: As this is not the case, leaders are forced to beat evil doers at their own game when necessary.
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. But he also admits that the two are not equal in honor or glory, and, perhaps, even moral worth. In this case it seems more about the spectacularity of the failure, and presumably the endurance of the subsequent shame in public memory.
Still, it is clear that glory is something desirable of itself, and that it cannot be achieved through immoral means. Evil for the sake of itself is actively discouraged.
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.
Machiavelli gives us Maximinus as an example:- 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.
A prince then, once he has attained his power, must have moral considerations at heart. Machiavelli’s prince is by no means an immoral or even amoral actor, though he may occasionally commit immoral acts, in the search for power.
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. 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. 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. 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.Download