Does being a realist make someone evil? Alternatively, does that mean he or she has an evil intention? Perhaps.

Reading Machiavelli, readers might ask such questions arriving with an answer that have their own interpretation of his political view. After comparing both Mansfield and Leonards argument, I have reached on the conclusion that Machiavelli was not evil but more of a pragmatist. However, in comparing both articles I could not fully support nor argue both their perspective on Machiavelli as I share some of their view as well. To understand Machiavellis point of view one has to understand the historical background of why it was written. In his early years he was exposed to an extremely chaotic and corrupted Florence where popes where leading armies, powerful city-states falling to foreign powers, and governments changing within the time of weeks. (Marriott W.K. 1908) Later, He followed a career with the government where he was placed in charge of the Military. However, when the Medici family over threw the republican government, he was stripped of his title and forced to be a commoner. Unhappy by his new status and wanting to return to politics and perhaps his old position, he looked for ways to get back to office. This led him to look for ways to appeal to the Medici family specifically to Lorenzo Medici to whom The Prince is dedicated. The Prince is written as an how to guide or an advise on how a ruler should achieve virtue and glory among his people and neighboring states. Machiavelli saw himself as a political theorist trying to use politics to heal the tensions in the divided Florence. Though much of his writing was realistic, I question if he believed them or if he simply was desperate enough to get the attention of the Royal family. His view on human nature was very pessimistic. In Machiavellis eyes, human beings were materialistic, very much in power, corrupt, and negative. However, I think this is a result accumulated of bad experiences that have challenged his view on human nature. He thinks a strong aristocratic government is necessary because people need disciples. In The Prince, Machiavelli gives the prince great power and calls him Natural Prince and places him above all. However, in the Discourses on Livy he support a very republic view where he states that he believes in civic virtue and the people are protected and valued as much as the king. How does Machiavelli explain virtue? Mansfield argues that Machiavellis explanation of virtue does not resemble the other writers. He states that virtue does not shine by itself...but only effectual when it is seen in

contrast to its opposites He further argues that the meaning of virtue is shocked by vise. I disagree with his statement, as Machiavellis definition of virtue seems to explain the qualities praised by others such as, generosity, compassion, and humility. He argues that a prince should always try to appear virtuous, but that acting virtuously for virtues sake can prove harmful to the principality. It explains that a prince should not avoid vices such as cruelty or dishonesty if employing them will benefit the state. Cruelty and other vices should not be pursued for their own sake, just as virtue should not be pursued for its own sake: virtues and vices should be considered as means to an end. Every action the prince takes must be considered in light of its effect on the state, not in terms of its intrinsic moral value. John Leonards who states that the virtu Machiavelli uses is misinterpreted with the English word virtue supports my view. He states that virtu signifies an excellence that manifests itself most clearly in military and political affairsand virtue is adherence to some set of moral principles. He further states that the word virtue is a list of moral qualitiesand indicates what it would mean to live in accordance with these qualities. Machiavelli justifies to this, explaining that a prince should be seen as having those qualities but not necessarily living by them. Machiavellis interpretation of good and bad was not in a religious concept. He explains that mans nature is good and evil but humans nature is essentially good and negative. However, the prince should be both good and evil if he is to rule effectively. He also expressed his view on the nature of the Prince justifying his nature as should be both loved and feared, though it is better to be feared than loved. I think this is an accurate statement to how leaders should act. I believe a leader should be strict and be willing to work with the end in mind. It is understandable that he or she might have to step on few bad apples to save the good ones to do the necessary and for the good of the many. However, this could be interpreted in different way. Machiavelli could be talking about the princes personality or how he rules his state. However, in both ways I think it is essential character that a ruler should acquire in order to defeat but also to hold his peoples expectation and be looked up to. In addition, Machiavelli states that to be a well-respected ruler the prince has to respect peoples traditions and promote material prosperity. Machiavellis explanation of a prince to appear good but not necessarily act on it was argued by Mansfield. He states the right way to get a reputation for liberality is to begin by not caring about having a reputation for

stinginess. I disagree and I think it is essential for a leader to promote a well-rounded reputation among his citizens. I think Machiavellis idea of keeping a good reputation while doing bad behind doors sounds like a typical political agenda many countries leaders seem to abide by. I believe that a leader with a bad reputation has either no respect from his people or will prompt the citizens to rise against him. In addition, a bad reputation can ruin, even cloud the work of the leader. For example, after President Bill Clinton admitted to an affair, he lost most of his supporters and decreasing of trusts and respect for his leadership. A generous personality would also not be in the benefit of the Prince. Machiavelli teaches us that a prince should not be too generous, as when he is too generous; he would run out of money resulting in revolt against him. The prince should be able to promote material prosperity. The wealthier the people are the less they will rally against him. People are easy bought off by materials and will be happy as long as there is no shortage. Another point he makes is that a prince should be both feared and loved. Further, he explains that it is far more important to be feared because fear is sustained by dread of punishment. Nevertheless, being loved is sustained by a bond of gratitude for men are self interested. He also advises the prince that he should make himself feared among his people but not hated for if he is hated he could be over thrown by the people. He writes that a prince can achieve fear by refraining from taking property of citizens or their women. Machiavelli writing of The Prince sounds very realistic to politics in this era. It seems as if most politicians have picked up his book and put it to act. I believe that Machiavelli is one of the most influential political theorist of all time. However, he wrote his very infamous book with his self interest to appeal to the Medici family and he might have been labeled as evil and ruthless but I think he was a pragmatist. He merely observed how power was used in his time and tried to advise the leader. It had to be admitted that it is a satire and not to be taken word for word and acted upon. Some of his writing are ridiculous and questionable if he really believed them or if he did it only for the case of supporting the Royal family. He does have the tendency to be inconsistence with his view. In prince he promotes aristocracy but in The Discourse of Livy he advocated republican view where the people are very much equal and also participating on the countries military activities. How ever, no one can deny his patriotism and admiration for his country as he was promoting Italys unity.

Having seen how Burgess ruled I think it gave him the awareness to distinguish of how a prince ought to be. However, I do not make the claim that he was right in all his writings. I think he exaggerated at times and very pessimistic of the human nature. I reached to the conclusion that the reason he thought all men were driven by their self interest was because he was driven by his self interest of going back to working with the government.

Reference: First published in 1515. Translated by W. K. Marriott in 1908.retrived from http://www.onlineliterature.com/machiavelli/prince/