1. In summary, what is Machiavelli’s view of human nature? In other words, how does he characterize man? (see chapter 17)
2. What role does virtue play in Machiavelli’s state? (see Chapter 15) In other words, what is virtue for Machiavelli and how does he make use of it? How is Machiavelli’s concept of virtue different than that of Plato or Aristotle?
3. Do you agree with the argument that American politics are Machiavellian? If so, of the two major political parties, which one do you feel is more aligned with Machiavelli’s approach to politics?
4. Discuss and explain the different ways that a Prince (ruler) can come to power according to Machiavelli? (see Chapter Three
Week 3 Discussion – Shepherd Not flagged – Click to flag
Profile image for Brian Shepherd
Week 3 Discussion – Shepherd
Brian Shepherd Jun 7, 2022 11:43 AM
Subscribe
1. In summary, what is Machiavelli’s view of human nature? In other words, how does he characterize man? (see chapter 17)
Machiavelli’s view of human nature is a bit more pessimistic in comparison to previous weeks. While I wouldn’t entirely disagree with him, he takes more of a stance that human nature seeks out any strong leader, whether cruel or not. The example was given in The Prince where he states that Hannibal was a cruel leader, but due to being victorious in battle he was able to keep control of his military. Machiavelli’s stance is that humanity is generally lost and in need of something to follow, and that even if the think that we follow isn’t good for us, we will follow it if we feel safe with it.
2. What role does virtue play in Machiavelli’s state? (see Chapter 15) In other words, what is virtue for Machiavelli and how does he make use of it? How is Machiavelli’s concept of virtue different than that of Plato or Aristotle?
Once again, Machiavelli has a more pessimistic but realistic view in this regard. Machiavelli considers the leader to be destined to make mistakes. Even with best intentions, he views the leader as a morally flawed person that may strive to have the best morals possible and yet will have many vices. Machiavelli says in chapter 15 that a prince should try to do all things morally but that he will have vices, therefore requiring him to avoid vices that will lead to him losing his state. This is different from Plato and Aristotle, as they were much more optimistic on their views of a leader. They argued that they could and should strive to be morally good at all times.
3. Do you agree with the argument that American politics are Machiavellian? If so, of the two major political parties, which one do you feel is more aligned with Machiavelli’s approach to politics?
I don’t think we have a Machiavellian political system at this point. We are at a point where weak leadership on both sides have left us worse off. Leadership simply tells us what will make us happy while avoiding addressing real serious issues that could get them in trouble for trying to fix it. I would say Republicans are more Machiavellian. They could certainly be considered more cruel than democrats. Cruelty is not necessarily a bad thing in this regard, as we need cruelty to get things done, but without good leadership to go through with it, citizens will be turned off by their cruelty.
4. Discuss and explain the different ways that a Prince (ruler) can come to power according to Machiavelli? (see Chapter Three
5.Machiavelli gives examples of how a ruler comes to power based on different forms of government. Some are given power by the elites of their state while others are by the majority of the common citizens. Some are elected through democratic processes while others seize power through military means. Some take power as a charismatic leader who steps in and passes quick change but then lose power because they could not keep their base excited.
5. For Machiavelli, virtue is doing whatever it takes to establish and maintain power. For Machiavelli, a ruler or leader is ‘just’ so long as he or she is able to establish stability by whatever means necessary. Many chastise Machiavelli, but is there some truth in his argument? Could it be that human nature simply doesn’t allow for man to govern from any other objective than this one or are dissenters of Machiavellian thought justified in their criticisms? Provide reasons and examples to support your argument
