Political Life example essay topic

Niccolo Machiavelli Statesman and Political Philosopher 1469-1527 No enterprise is more likely to succeed than one concealed from the enemy until it is ripe for execution. -Machiavelli from The Art of War I was born on May 3, 1469 in Florence, Italy. I was a political philosopher and diplomat during the Renaissance, and I'm most famous for my political treatise, The Prince (1513), that has become a cornerstone of modern political philosophy. My life was very interesting.

I lived a nondescript childhood in Florence, and mine main political experience in my youth was watching Savanarola from afar. Soon after Savanarola was executed, I entered the Florentine government as a secretary. My position quickly rose, however, and was soon engaging in diplomatic missions. I met many of the important politicians of the day, such as the Pope and the King of France, but none had more impact on me than a prince of the Papal States, Cesare Borgia. Borgia was a cunning, cruel man, very much like the one portrayed in The Prince. I did not truly like Borgia's policies, but I thought that with a ruler like Borgia the Florentine could unite Italy, which was my goal throughout life.

Unfortunately for myself, I was dismissed from office when the Medici came to rule Florence and the Republic was overthrown. The lack of a job forced me to switch to writing about politics instead of being active. My diplomatic missions were my last official government positions. When I lost my office, desperately I wanted to return to politics. I tried to gain the favor of the Medici by writing a book of what I thought were the Medici's goals and dedicating it to them. And so The Prince was written for that purpose.

Unfortunately, the Medici didn't agree with what the book said, so I was out of a job. But when the public saw the book, they were outraged. The people wondered how cruel a man could be to think evil thoughts like the ones in The Prince, and this would come back to haunt me when I was alive and dead. However, if the people wanted to know what my self really stood for, they should have read my 'Discourses on Livy', which explains my full political philosophy.

But not enough people had and have, and so the legacy of The Prince continues to define my person to the general public. In The Prince, I offered a monarchical ruler advice designed to keep that ruler in power. I recommended policies that would discourage mass political activism, and channel subjects' energies into private pursuits. I wanted to persuade the monarch that he could best preserve his power by the judicious use of violence, by respecting private property and the traditions of his subjects, and by promoting material prosperity. I held that political life cannot be governed by a single set of moral or religious absolutes, and that the monarch may sometimes be excused for performing acts of violence and deception that would be ethically indefensible in private life.

During the Renaissance Italy was a scene of intense political conflict involving the dominant city-states of Florence, Milan, Venice, and Naples, plus the Papacy, France, Spain, and the Holy Roman Empire. Each city attempted to protect itself by playing the larger powers off against each other. The result was massive political intrigue, blackmail, and violence. The Prince was written against this backdrop, and in my conclusion call for Italian unity, and an end to foreign intervention. My other major work, Discourses on the First Ten Books of Titus Liv ius (1513-21), was mainly concerned with 'republics,' defined as states controlled by a politically active citizenry. In 'Discourses' I emphasized that for a republic to survive, it needed to foster a spirit of patriotism and civic virtue among its citizens.

I argued that a republic would be strengthened by the conflicts generated through open political participation and debate. It is a common misconception that I faked my own death. Actually it is a strategy I wrote about in my book, Art of War (1521). A prince could fake his own death and then plot behind the scenes against his enemies.

In 'Art of War,' I combine Roman military theories with the revolutionary idea that war and politics form a kind of functional unity, with war serving as an instrument of politics. My Dell " arte della guerra (The Art of War) (1520) explains in detail effective procedures for the acquisition, maintenance, and use of a military force. Even in my most leisurely reflections on the political process, I often wrote in a similar vein. The Disco rsi so pra la prima Deca di Tito Livid (Discourses on Livy) (1531) review the history of the Roman republic, with greater emphasis on the role of fortune and a clear admiration for republican government. Here, too, however, my conception of the proper application of morality to practical political life is one that judges the skill of all participants in terms of the efficacy with which they achieve noble ends. Whatever the form of government, I held, only the success and glory really matters.

Partly of my pragmatic view of the relationship between ethics and politics, I have been widely misinterpreted. The adjective 'Machiavellian' has become a pejorative used to describe a politician who manipulates others in an opportunistic and deceptive way. If the French and English writers of the Renaissance period are to be believed, Machiavellianism represented the greatest single source of atheism in Western Europe. For poets, scholars and pamphleteers I'm alike, the arch-atheist, the devil who had taught men to use religion for their own ends, who had corrupted France and brought about St. Bartholomew's Day [1572, when 3,000 Huguenots were massacred in Paris], who had taught simple Englishmen to be atheists and who, unless my works were put down or effectively combated, would be the ruin of Christendom. My name Niccolo ['Old Nick'] at that time became and has ever since remained a synonym for the devil. Roger Ascham attacked my influence in England in the 'Schoolmaster' and Gentille t speaking of my influence in France bemoaned and deplored, 'the misery and calamity of the time wherein we are, which is so infected with Atheists, and contemner's of God and all Religion, that even they which have no religion, are best esteemed, and called in the court language' People of service', because being fraught ed with all impieties and Atheism, and having well studied their Machiavel, which they know upon their fingers, they make no scruple or conscience at any thing'.

". ['History of Western Atheism'] The philosopher who said 'God is Dead', Friedrich Nietzsche, regarded myself as, 'perfection in politics'. I was influenced by the early Greek philosophers, especially Plato. However, in many cases I argued against Platonic philosophy. Plato believed in just rulers, who ruled via moral virtue. I believed in 'Virtu', whatever was best for the State was Virtu'.

In Plato's time, man served the state. According to Monarch notes on The Republic: The basic idea referred to is the view that ethics and politics are the same, or at least co-terminus (overlapping in essential features). There was no distinction between private life and public life, as there is today. There was no such concept as the 'invasion of privacy,' perhaps because no Athenian felt that he had a private life that was to be kept distinct from his public life. However, in my times, as it is today, the States whole reason for being was to serve the citizens, not vice versa. I believed the only purpose for a ruler was to make war, and protect its citizens from attacks by other states.

The ruler, therefore, is justified in doing whatever is necessary to maintain the country, even if it is unjust. Plato argues a ruler can never be unjust. Plato argues against the type of ruler, who rules solely by might in The Republic. The argument stands as a defense against my Machiavellian society: In practicing a skill, we do not aim to go beyond, but only to hit the right point. Virtue is a kind of skill, and this requires knowledge of what is the right measure. The unjust man, therefore, is not exercising much of a skill, is he?

Nor is the tyrant doing much of a job at ruling. One cannot claim to play a higher F-sharp than anyone else - since we all know that F-sharp is F-sharp, and there cannot be higher or lower F-sharp's. It is the just man who knows the proper note; it is the unjust man who exceeds it and goes out of tune in his life. It is injustice, then, that is the fool's game. It destroys individuals, as it destroys states. (Plato, The Republic.

349 E, P. 35-36) I was greatly influenced by the Greek and Latin classics, I take a critical stance in dealing with the idea of morality. A Prince's main duty is the preservation of his country and the protection of his subjects. 'A Prince, therefore should have no care or thought but for war, and the regulations and training it requires, and should apply himself exclusively to this as his peculiar province; for war is the sole art looked for in one who rules' (Machiavelli, P. 70). This is not far from what we look for in Republican societies now days. I believe a good leader's main responsibility is to preserve his country first. According to Salmon: Machiavelli says 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.

But since the goal of the ruler is to conquer and preserve the state, he should not shrink from wrongdoing when the preservation of the state requires this. Thus, the classical concept of civic virtue, which is a moral code applicable to rulers and subjects alike, is critically transformed in Machiavelli's concept of virtu', which pertains to rulers of states and can be at odds with moral virtue. (Salmon, Merri lee H, 'Landmarks in Critical Thinking Series: Machiavelli's The Prince') My idea of virtu' is not of moral character then, but of what is best or the utilitarian needs of the country. For me virtu' out weighs in times of need while Plato believes a just ruler must behave the same all the time. I analyze the crucial characteristics of successful rulers, distinguishing, for example, between standards of discipline appropriate for military campaigns and for rulers when they are not commanding armies. Similarly, when I discuss the concepts of cruelty and mercy, I present examples to show that actions which might seem at first glance to be cruel are merciful in the circumstances, and vice versa.

I believe Monarchy is a fraud, and offers a way of separating morality or religion from politics. Politics is a cruel game, and sometimes politicians must lie in order to ensure the utilitarian good. The total honesty is not always what a good Prince needs to hear, but is a type of flattery that should be shunned. I wrote: For there is no way to guard against flattery but by letting it be seen that you take no offence in hearing the truth: but when every one is free to tell you the truth, respect falls short. Wherefore a prudent Prince should follow a middle course, by choosing certain discreet men from among his subjects, and allowing them alone free leave to speak their minds on any matter on which he asks their opinion, and on none other.

But he ought to ask their opinion on everything, and after hearing what they have to say, should reflect and judge for him. (Machiavelli, The Prince. The Renaissance man, Edited by Daniel Fader, Godlier: New York P. 113) I greatly admire the works of Plato and other sophists. I employed the conditional patterns of argumentation developed by the Stoic logicians.

I frequently use the dilemma form since this is useful for presenting alternative courses of action along with their consequences. I wrote in two different eras. In Plato's era, man based philosophy on utopian ideals and principles. They were concerned with how things should be, not how they were. If we all behave this way, we will have a perfect society. However, I was a realist.

I was concerned with how things were in reality, not how things could be if the world was perfect. I was greatly influenced by all my failures in public life. I served as head of the second chancery of the Florentine republic, but I was dismissed after it fell in 1512. The Medici family was again ruling Florence, and a Medici also sat on the papal throne in Rome. The Prince was an attempt to prevent form those failures being repeated in the future. I tried unsuccessfully to use this treatise to gain an advisory appointment either to the papacy or the court of the Duke.

He was not concerned with moral virtue, if it meant the destruction and defeat of his state. I viewed human nature as venal, grasping, and thoroughly self-serving; I suggested that ruthless cunning is appropriate to the conduct of government.