The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli: A Critical and Ethical Analysis
Critical Analysis of The Prince
The Prince presents an extended analysis of the principles that privileged members of the society employ to acquire and maintain political power. In his political treatise, Machiavelli discusses certain political deeds in the society of The Prince that are morally unacceptable and offensive. Machiavelli highlights the four types of principalities that govern leadership in chapter 1. These principalities include the hereditary, mixed, new principality, and ecclesiastical principality (Barnett 2006 p. 6). The ruler inherits the hereditary principality while mixed principalities involve a leadership scenario whereby territories are annexed to the existing territories of the ruler. New principalities are acquired by various methods, which includes power of the individual, through the power of others, by extreme cruelty or criminal acts, or through people’s will. Ecclesiastical principalities are mainly concerned with Papal States, which belong to the Catholic Church. In essence, every principality applies to given state or country depending on the political environment (Barnett 2006 p. 6).
The people play an essential role in the resolve of the form of leadership. The people would be reluctant to accept certain form of leadership and government while assenting to others. The author presents accounts of the role of the church in determining the kind of leadership many people would be compatible with considering their spirituality and religious doctrines (Barnett 2006 p. 6). New principalities dominate the author’s opinion on leadership. According to him, the contemporary society is awash with different forms of leadership whereby majority of the individuals ascending to power through material and charisma. Others are elected courtesy of the will of the people. However, a few people use force and criminal acts to become executives of countries, states or local authorities (Barnett 2006 p. 6).
In his political treatise, the author recommends the personality and behavior of the prince in an attempt to take control of the people at the helm of country’s leadership. The citizens will also play a major role in the success of the leader upon election or acquisition of power through other alternatives means. The Prince is set at a period of Italian deep activity in art, literature and science (Selwyn 2012 p. 57). This was the characterized by moral decadence and corruption mainly demonstrated by the conduct of Pope Alexander VI. Like many writers, Machiavelli employs the doctrine of reason of state to show the idea that the stability and well-being of a country or state is imperative. Hence, those in power should make stability of the state and welfare a priority in their habitual leadership strategies (Selwyn 2012 p. 57).
In states where leaders ascend to power upon undergoing a rigorous and competitive election, it is essential for all leaders in their capacities of leadership to observe the will of the people. In essence, they should give the citizens a chance to enjoy the fruits of the leadership upon successfully electing their leader. Thus, it would be ridiculous if a leader begins to serve personal interests after fruitfully climbing to the top of leadership ladder (Selwyn 2012 p. 57). Majority of the concerns of the people are always universal. Apparently, the electorates play their constitutional role of electing leaders to attend to their grievances collectively at the village, local, territorial, state or federal level. The major concern of the public has been ways and means by which people can make their lives bearable. Availability of sufficient social amenities, better infrastructure, and harmony among different ethnic groups, race and political factions are the primary concerns of the voting public (Selwyn 2012 p. 57). Actions regarded as immoral or illegal under ordinary circumstance would only create discontent and displeasure among members of the public. These vices have facilitated rise in public unrest and dissatisfaction with leaders in power and in some cases leads to the public overthrowing their own governments and voting in new leaders. Corruption and misuse of public funds have led to collapse of various governments leading to state of anarchy (Selwyn 2012 p. 57).
The Prince justifies the popular notion that any action taken by a ruler is justifiable in the event that it contributes to peace, prosperity and stability of the state. Incidentally, Machiavelli endorses some of the cruel vices such as deceit, cruelty, violence and murder. According to him, the vices are all positive if directed towards a greater good in the end (Selwyn 2012 p. 57). The state may apply brutal tactics when dealing with the enemies of the people and the government. Among the public are individuals and groups whose aim is to create political instability and induce violence among different ethnic groups and races. The government in cooperation with members of the public will initiate strategies with a mission to eradicate such groups. The principle of application of the vices dictate that an action that results into injuries of a few is better than action whose outcome is mass ruin and copious casualties (Selwyn 2012 p. 57).
The author categorically acknowledges Cesare Borgia for his cruelty during his course to subdue the Romagna since it eventually brought the much needed peace and safety to the previously lawless region (Phillips 2008 p. 14). In this regard, cruelty and brutality play positive role in restoring unity and harmony among the public despite the disparities in their ethnic, social classes, and race. However, the public and government must collectively guard against excessive and dishonest application of such vices. A section of the population may improperly employ the vices with the intention of settling scores with rivals, yet they pretend to be guarding the people. People in position of leadership may also corruptly apply such vices with ulterior motive possibly to harm their opponents (Phillips 2008 p. 14). The author also defends himself against any future blame for endorsing violence or deceit for the sake of it. However, he hints at the basic levels of injury and violence which majority of rulers find inevitable.
Although colonies employ force to deprive people of their homes and lands, it is not as harsh as the occupation of the army. The army offends and serious injure almost everyone in the territory. Through his piece of art, Machiavelli illustrates the relationship that exists between politics and religion and manages to separate the religion from politics (Phillips 2008 p. 14). He believes that politics can be successfully divorced from theology, just like government from religion. In the Italian context, the church plays a significant part in ensuring political sanity and proper governance. He attests to the implication of creating conditions that enable men fulfill their primary desires of security, happiness, and self-preservation without necessarily having their souls shaped by the religion (Phillips 2008 p. 14). The state is not instrumental in shaping the purpose or moral end. However, he gives a conventional analogy of religion considering its role of nurturing souls of the people. Besides, it is a crucial tool for social control and personal salvation.
Ethical analysis of the Prince by Niccolò Machiavelli
Machiavelli stresses that a number of characters are inherent in human nature. Individuals are overall self-centered, even though their love for others is both winnable and losable. Individuals exhibit contentment and happiness so long; they are not casualties of anything dreadful. People possibly will be honorable in prosperous times, even though they will rapidly transform to selfish, profit-propelled, and deceitful during periods of adversity. People approve of generosity, honor, piety, and courage in other persons, but the majority of them fail to exhibit such virtues themselves. Aspiration is commonly discoverable amongst individuals who have gained certain authority, but the majority of common persons show satisfaction with the retention of the status quo thus does not desire for augmented status. Individuals will as expected feel a sense of responsibility following a receipt of service or favor, and such a bond is difficult to break. Even so, loyalties remain both winnable and losable, and goodwill is never supreme.
Machiavelli describes virtues as commendable qualities such as compassion, generosity, along with godliness. Machiavelli’s argument is that a prince should frequently endeavor to emerge virtuous, even though acting virtuously for the sake of virtue can prove damaging to principality. A prince ought not to inevitably pass up vices such as dishonesty or cruelty when applying them will do well to the state. Vindictiveness and other require no pursuit for their individual sake, just as there should not be a pursuit for virtue for its individual sake. The conception of virtues and traits should be a means to an ending. All the actions taken by the prince should be considerate in light of its influence on the nation and not regarding its fundamental ethical value. Machiavelli frequently makes use of the words fortune and prowess to define two distinctive means in which a prince can ascend to authority. Prowess refers to the talents of an individual whilst fortune implies the opportunities or providence (Mobilereference, 2008, p79).
Part of the aim of Machiavelli writing The Prince is to scrutinize how the successes or failures of a prince stem from his personal free will and the determined amount by nature or the surrounding that he subsists. Machiavelli makes use of this question particularly to the failures of previous Italian princes. In chapter twenty-five, Machiavelli talks about the role of affluence in establishing the affairs of humanity. Machiavelli endeavors to compromise between determinism and free will through arguing that affluence controls half of the actions by humans and leaves the remaining half to free will. By foresight, which is a value that he advocates all through the book, Machiavelli argues that individuals can safeguard themselves against vicissitudes of fortune. As such, Machiavelli is self-assured in the authority of human beings to formulate their destinies to extent; even though equally self-assured, that control of humanity over occurrences is never supreme.
To stay in authority, a prince ought to keep away from the hatred of his populace. It is not obligatory for the prince to receive love as commonly it better for the populace to express fear instead. Hating on the prince can nonetheless result in the downfall of a prince. This assertion possibly will appear incompatible with statements by Machiavelli on the effectiveness of cruelty even though, Machiavelli promotes the application of spitefulness only as it fails to compromise the long-term benevolence of the populace. The goodwill of the populace is frequently the best protection against both foreign aggressions and domestic insurrections. Machiavelli cautions princes against committing things, which possibly will result in abhorrence such as the dissolution of conventional institutions or confiscation of property. Even installations, which have ordinary value for military application, such as fortresses, ought to receive judgment primarily on their prospective to bring together backing for the prince.
Without a doubt, when a prince has absolute surety that the individuals who detest him will never have the capacity of rising against him, the prince can cease worrying about inviting repulsion from any of his staff. Eventually, acquiring the goodwill of the populace has nothing or little to do with a wish for the overall contentment of the populace. Instead, goodwill is an instrument politically made use of in ensuring the stability of the prince’s period in authority. Machiavelli has a conviction that moral regulations follow as expected from a good military. Machiavelli’s well-known statement that the presence of sound military forces indicates the presence of good laws defines the connection between advancing states and battle in The Prince. Machiavelli turns around the traditional understanding of battle as an indispensable, even though not descriptive, component of the advancement of states, and rather emphasizes that a successful battle is the sheer grounds of construction of every state (Machiavelli & Langdon, 2007, p 102).
The main composition of The Prince has its devotion on defining precisely whatever it implies to carry out an unfailing war, effective fortification of a city, manner of treating subjects in freshly acquired regions, and means of preventing domestic insurrections, which would hinder from an effective war. Machiavelli nonetheless, definition of war encompasses not only the direct usage of military power, but also includes international diplomacy, tactical strategy, domestic politics, historical analysis, and geographic mastery. Within the framework of Machiavelli’s Italy, when cities constantly encountered threats from the surrounding principalities and the region had languished through struggles of power for numerous years, Machiavelli’s techniques of perception regarding nearly every affair of the state via a military lens was an opportune improvement in political thinking. The passage from chapter three is an instance of logical reckoning devoid of considerations of ethics. A prince ought to appreciate that he encompasses two alternatives of destruction and benevolence.
Since the former alternative will result in resentment amongst the populace, the prince should prefer it only when he is certain there would be no ill effects. The destruction a prince incurs will disable or eliminate any parties, which possibly will seek to settle scores against the prince. The feelings of sympathy or compassion are insignificant. Self-protection and self-interest are in this instance the inspiring factors and their pursuit should be ruthless. The passage from chapter six is an instance of Machiavelli’s utilization of assumptions concerning human nature to rationalize political actions. Whilst Machiavelli fastens his chronological past with a wealth of proof and specify he inclines not to offer significant elucidations for numerous, broad proclamations he articulates regarding human nature (Machiavelli, 2010, p 97).
Closer reading of the novel reveals the argument by Machiavelli is a logical porch of his evaluation of virtue and human nature. In the initial place, individuals will become treacherous if conditions warrant. The ultimate objective of the prince is to keep up the state, which needs the conformity of the populace. Between cruelty and benevolence, it follows that the former is unfailing. Machiavelli never promotes the utilization of cruelty for its individual sake, but only in the wellbeing of the eventual result of statecraft.
Niccolo di Bernardo dei Machiavelli an Italian politician, philosopher and a diplomat, was born 3rd May 1469 and died on 21st June 1527. The Italian was a historian and a writer in Florence at a time when renaissance was taking place (Selwyn 2012 p. 57). Niccolo Machiavelli for many years became a Florentine Republic official. His responsibilities were in the military affairs and in diplomatic situations. Niccolo Bernardo was also the founder of the modern political science and political ethics. Apart from his philosophies, diplomacy, politics and history, Niccolo wrote comedies, poetry and carnival songs (Selwyn 2012 p. 57).
Niccolo Machiavelli was determined in penning down a persuasive treaty whereby different rulers would rule his city-state. Upon the retirement of Niccolo Machiavelli from his diplomatic missions, Niccolo Machiavelli wrote The Prince in 1532. The book mainly focused on ways in which a ruler may attain and maintain power. The book the Prince became an instant hit and a foundation stone about the political philosophies (Tarlton 2004 p. 1). The book has been vital to many historians, students, professors and philosophers upon its completion. The book the prince’ political ethics views are contradictory on some various aspects. The aspects include the people’s duties, the ruler’s duty and the church-state relations. Despite the book becoming an instant hit among the philosophers, historians, other writers and students, for a long time, The Prince has generated surprising controversial moments. Almost all the ideologies in the Prince book have in one way, or the other tried to appropriate itself. In most cases, this has made sure that everyone from Mussolini to Clement VII made a claim against it (Tarlton 2004 p. 1). The book was almost unpopular in some areas.
Concerning the church state relations, the prince and the bible differ. God’s unique plan of the government entailed God’s theocracy as the leaders while a divinely appointed leader or the prophet as his people’s representative. Some of the perfect examples of the theocracy included Joshua, Moses and the Israel judges (Tarlton 2004 p. 1). Nonetheless, because of the people’s sins and their reluctance to follow, God offered the Israel nation a king who was to rule them. They also had a high priest who was supposed to meet the Israelites spiritual needs. The Church and the State had close ties with the Old Testament. In contrast, the New Testament era, the State and the Church separate. This was because the Romans had overpowered the Israel hence; they appointed a pagan ruler to take charge of the Kingdom (Tarlton 2004 p. 1).
During the Middle age period, there was an increase in ties by the Catholic church of the church towards the State. This was through the influence of the Papal over the kings. The Biblical command of the Church-State relations was a ruler divinely appointed, led the people and was praying interminably for the help of God (Tarlton 2004 p. 1). The leader was also supposed to make sound judgments on wisdom and the Bible. The king’s heart is also supposed to be closer to God thus; God’s judgments will be the final judge among all the nations. Generally, the religious nature of the king was as mockery. In some other aspects, the king’s religious nature was full of mockery in The Prince. It was difficult to separate church and state. They were extremely inseparable. Despite this, the Prince was religious to ensure that the commoners remained happy (Tarlton 2004 p. 1).
References
Machiavelli, N. 2010. The Prince: the original classic. Chichester, West Sussex, Capstone Pub.
Machiavelli, N., & Langdon, K. 2007. Niccolo Machiavelli’s The prince: a 52 brilliant ideas interpretation. Oxford, Infinite Ideas.
Mobilereference. 2008. The Prince by Niccolò Machiavelli. Boston, MobileReference.com. http://public.eblib.com/EBLPublic/PublicView.do?ptiID=363518.
Barnett, V 2006, ‘Niccolo Machiavelli — the Cunning Critic of Political Reason’, History Review, 56, p. 6,
Machiavelli, N., & atkinson, J. B. 2004. The prince. [Champaign, IL], Project Gutenberg.
Phillips, T. 2008. Niccolo Machiavelli’s The prince: a 52 brilliant ideas interpretation. Warriewood, N.S.W., Woodslane.
Selwyn, L 2012, ‘The Prince’, Library Journal, 137, 1, p. 57, Professional Development Collection,
Tarlton, CD 2004, ‘Machiavelli’s The Prince as Memoir’, Texas Studies In Literature & Language, 46, 1, pp. 1-19
