![]() ![]() One example Machiavelli offers concerns the virtue of generosity. Machiavelli has indeed made it clear that when considering whether it is better to be loved or feared, it is desirable, though not easy, to be both loved and feared (Machiavelli, 87 Skinner, Kahn). Both characteristics inspire a kind of fear-based leadership, since one would never truly know when virtuous deeds were being applied with cunning, or in the guise of force. When Machiavelli urges rulers to take on the characteristics of animals (the fox and the lion), he is indicating the contextual basis for using cunning (fox) and/or force (lion) when the situation requires. This is where the characteristics of the Lion and the Fox become relevant metaphors for the character of a rule, moved from human virtue and situated in more allegorical contexts for manipulating morals from a virtue, towards a strategy of leadership (Kain, 114) Foxes and Lions Virtú describes how rulers of states and can be at odds with moral virtue, and how this is, inevitably, for the good of the state. In this significant argument of The Prince, Machiavelli turns from the classical concept of civic virtue, which is a moral code applicable to rulers and subjects, and transforms it to a different concept of virtú (Machiavelli, 98). Machiavelli argues that rulers should be truthful, keep promises, and the like when doing so will not harm the state, and that they should generally appear to have the traditional virtues.īy the same token, since the goal of the ruler is to conquer and preserve the state, he should be prepared to accept responsibility for wrongdoing when the preservation of the state requires this. Machiavelli, however, assumes a different position, and points out the negative consequences for the state when rulers adhere, without exception to these moral standards (Kahn, 198). ![]() According to Machiavelli, then, Cicero and Seneca advise rulers to always tell the truth, be generous, and honor their promises These are moral virtues that determine a ruler’s character (Skinner, 113) As this was a time when theory was contingent upon a thorough historical analysis of events and previous writings, Machiavelli’s The Prince proposes new ideas about leadership on the basis of past examples of state rulers.įor example, he expresses great respect for Latin classical authors such as Cicero and Seneca however, Machiavelli takes a critical stance towards these sources at the same time that he is emulating their style. Machiavelli wrote his text during the Renaissance. This essay considers the issue of separating political and moral issues in State-based leadership as a key structure to Machiavelli’s thesis. Other critics condemn him for being naive, promoting fraud, force, and immorality in politics, using beneficial ends to justify evil means, and for betraying republican ideals (Kain). There are contradictory views on the text, where some critics have praised Machiavelli for his sophistication, clarity, realism, subtlety, irony (Skinner, Kahn).Machiavelli’s work is regarded as supporting a republican form of government by exposing the faults of princedoms and he is praised for his ability to separate political from moral issues. Niccolò Machiavelli was born in 1469, and wrote The Prince during 1513 while living in political exile at his country house outside of Florence. This essay reviews the Prince with particular interest in the differences between politics and morality, and how these are relevant to issues of leadership in current political contexts. ![]() The foundation of these conflicts is in the distinctions Machiavelli draws between political leadership and morality. While it is commonly read as a treatise on political science, it is also regarded as a “handbook” for tyranny. Abstract: This essay considers the contradictory interpretations of Machiavelli’s (1532) The Prince. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |