Short_Analysis_of_the_Prince

Our good Italian advisor tells us that he is not describing the world, human nature, politics, and princely behavior (or ‘governance’) not as they ought to be, but the way that they are. This is the is/ought distinction he draws. He considers himself (his thinking) absolutely realistic and truthful and honest. He bases this in his theory of human nature and in his observation of history and current society. Write an essay in which you lay out Machiavelli’s views in The Prince selections, and then go on to respond to this in the last half or one-third of your essay. Do you agree or disagree (and with what parts of his text') and why or why not' Why are his views significant, bold, brilliant, deplorable, illogical, or so on' You do not have to try and summarize or even respond to all of his ideas. Pick a big idea of his and stick to that one. The famous Italian historian, politician, diplomat, philosopher, humanist and writer, Niccolò Machiavelli wrote his best-know book, “The Prince” (II Principe). In this book, he stated the qualities that a proper leader should have. Machiavelli had at least twenty nicknames in the past four hundreds years, such as devil, supporter of dictator power, evil tutor, and the “Brutal Machiavelli” by Shakespeare. These names are all because of his support for the dictatorship, negligence of moral and advocate of violence in “The Prince”. He believed that a leader should learn from lions and foxes: as cunning as foxes and as ferocity as lions. Machiavelli’s ruling approach can be described as play instrumental reason to extreme. He would achieve his goals regardless everything. He was purely utilitarian and utility is the only motivation for him. He totally ignored the moral values. As long as it can with governance, by all means, even as if intrigue, treachery, extortion, intrigues, were perfectly justified. “The Prince” proposed a set of political trickery and rule strategy that politicians need to be decisive, cunning, hypocrisy, and for the only goal to achieve their goals. For political activities, and moral dogma must be cut because “some things seem to be virtuous, but if they are put into practice will be ruinous to him; other things seem to be vices, yet if put into practice will bring the prince security and well-being.”(Chapter 15) And after he mentioned “he should be slow in believing and acting, and should make no one afraid of him; his procedure should be so tempered with prudence and humanity that too much confidence does not make him incautious, and too much suspicion does not make him unbearable.” (Chapter 17) These are obviously encouraging those in power to governance by evil means. The Prince is so emphasis on instrumental rationality and therefore it is very different from Christian value. So the book is always considered as deviant. Recent years, scholars began vindicating for Machiavelli. Just look at “The Prince", you would think he is an advocate for the pursuit of power, being unscrupulous; reaching the goal regardless everything. However, if combine the other work of Machiavelli "Discourses on Livy" (Discorsi sopra la prima deca di Tito Livio) to read, you can see in fact Machiavelli was always pursuing republicanism, constitutionalism and the rule of law., even at the very first place. Regardless all, “The Prince” is a book for the dictator to keep his throne but not a book for him to manage his state. In contrast, “The Republic” by Plato, is focusing on how to build an ideal city-state for citizens and defining what is justice. “The Prince” neglects the importance of justice and citizens. Louis XIV of France said before, “I am the state”. If in the point view of Louis XIV, then “the Prince” is the brilliant work for the country. However, the view upon “country” is different from Louis XIV’ period. The prince does no longer exist in this world. The people is the most fundamental part of the country nowadays. So this book should be eliminated, and should be replaced by “The Republic” or even “Discourses on Livy”. Re-examine the "Prince" in today's society, and its authoritarian, in violation of the ideology of democracy and freedom and human rights must be criticized, but the political realism is worth of today's politicians ponder. Former U.S. President Bill Clinton’s friend Dick. Morris is the author of a book of " The New Prince”. Morris thinks modern society, due to university education popularization and information explosion, the independent judgment of the public is rising, "The Prince" cannot be applied to modern society. In today's society in politics, should be open with popular support, in order to win the election, firmly installed in positions of power, as well as the smooth-promoting policies. Similarly, the bloody surpass is no longer any modern civilized society can accept as the ruling means, an authoritarian government is also contrary to the universal values. When the Chinese communist government to put down “The Prince" political means, into the new world of "The New Prince"' Reference: 1. The Prince by Niccolò Machiavelli 2. Discourses on Livy by Niccolò Machiavelli 3. The Republic by Plato 4. The New Prince by Dick Morris