An evaluation of machiavellis view of human nature

Machiavelli's The Prince, part 7: the two sides of human nature

Whether it is any more plausible to hold out hope for the creation of more responsive republican institutions than to demand flexibility in the personal qualities of princes is not directly examined by the Discourses.

Indeed, this is precisely why successive French monarchs have left their people disarmed: Machiavelli no more anticipated the theory of evolution than he did the theory of relativity. With regard to its judgment, when two speakers of equal skill are heard advocating different alternatives, very rarely does one find the people failing to adopt the better view or incapable of appreciating the truth of what it hears Machiavelli Machiavelli adopted this position on both pragmatic and principled grounds.

In a sense, it was thought that rulers did well when they did good; they earned the right to be obeyed and respected inasmuch as they showed themselves to be virtuous and morally upright.

Niccolò Machiavelli

Machiavelli discourages action to taken otherwise " The contrast Machiavelli draws is stark. Comparing humans with animals was an ancient custom, the virtues of strength, cunning, hard-work or even self-sacrifice being apparently evident in nature and eminently worthy of human contemplation.

Other small tasks were forthcoming from the Medici government, but before he could achieve a full rehabilitation, he died on 21 June The methods for achieving obedience are varied, and depend heavily upon the foresight that the prince exercises. Many authors especially those who composed mirror-of-princes books or royal advice books during the Middle Ages and Renaissance believed that the use of political power was only rightful if it was exercised by a ruler whose personal moral character was strictly virtuous.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau long ago held that the real lesson of The Prince is to teach the people the truth about how princes behave and thus to expose, rather than celebrate, the immorality at the core of one-man rule. Citing the formula vox populi, vox dei, Machiavelli insists that public opinion is remarkably accurate in its prognostications….

For a prince who knows no other control but his own will is like a madman, and a people that can do as it pleases will hardly be wise. Beyond these considerations, in the background of Discourses I. We have letters, dispatches, and occasional writings that testify to his political assignments as well as to his acute talent for the analysis of personalities and institutions.

Yet Machiavelli himself apparently harbored severe doubts about whether human beings were psychologically capable of generating such flexible dispositions within themselves.

This historical ambiguity permits scholars to make equally convincing cases for contradictory claims about his fundamental stance without appearing to commit egregious violence to his doctrines.

Rather, authority and power are essentially coequal: Second, Machiavelli assumes that people will assess their interests primarily in secular or this-worldly terms. Machiavelli is confident that citizens will always fight for their liberty—against internal as well as external oppressors.

He makes the generalization that men are, " The ruler who lives by his rights alone will surely wither and die by those same rights, because in the rough-and-tumble of political conflict those who prefer power to authority are more likely to succeed.

This connects to the claim in the Discourses that the popular elements within the community form the best safeguard of civic liberty as well as the most reliable source of decision-making about the public good.


It is far easier to convince a single ruler to undertake a disastrous or ill-conceived course of action than a multitude of people.

Consequently, Machiavelli is led to conclude that fear is always preferable to affection in subjects, just as violence and deception are superior to legality in effectively controlling them.

The preconditions of vivere libero simply do not favor the security that is the aim of constitutional monarchy. Yet few firm conclusions have emerged within scholarship.machiavelli’s view on religion Before Machiavelli, almost all thinkers and political personalities believed and propagated and promoted religion as the basis of the state.

Plato considered state as the sole priority and religion to. Machiavelli’s Conception of Human Nature. Robert Bass Department of Philosophy Coastal Carolina University Conway, SC [email protected] Simple versions of Machiavelli’s conception of human nature may readily be elicited from The Prince.

It is easy to find textual support for claims that appear to presuppose or be equivalent to. But The Prince's view of human nature is more modern than its cynicism alone suggests.

What Was Machiavelli's View Of Human Nature

Throughout the book, Machiavelli blurs the boundaries between the human and the animal. Comparing humans with animals was an ancient custom, the virtues of strength, cunning, hard-work or even self-sacrifice being apparently evident in nature and.

Niccolo Machiavelli was an Italian renaissance, historian, philosopher, politician, humanist and writer,born on 3rd May He is known as the first modern political thinker.(Why is Machiavelli considered as the first modern political thinker? He gave his views on the nature of state, human and also on how any prince should work using.

philosophy of mind and human nature naturalistic versus theological and supernatural—captures an important fault line that runs through the debate over human nature, it by no means determines all of.

Chapter Given that any person in a position of power requires the assistance of others, what is Machiavelli's take on ministers/advisers? Need people there to help, but they are suppose to make the Prince look good.

An evaluation of machiavellis view of human nature
Rated 0/5 based on 83 review