Niccolo Machiavelli: His Personal Background

            Machiavelli’s political life in Florence, Italy.

Machiavelli’s main political experience in his youth was watching Savanarola. Soon after Savanarola was executed, Machiavelli entered the Florentine government as a secretary and was soon engaging in diplomatic missions. He met many of the important politicians of the day but none had more impact on him than a prince of the Papal States, Cesare Borgia. Machiavelli did not like Borgia's policies, but he thought that with a ruler like Borgia the Florentines could unite Italy. Unfortunately for Machiavelli, he was dismissed from office when the Medici came to rule Florence and the Republic was overthrown. The lack of a job forced him to switch to writing about politics instead of being active. When Machiavelli lost his office, he desperately wanted to return to politics. He tried to gain the favor of the Medici by writing a book of what he thought were the Medici's goals and dedicating it to them which was the purpose on writing The Prince. Unfortunately, the Medici didn't agree with what the book said, so he was out of a job. But when the public saw the book, they were outraged. A few years later the Medici were kicked out of Florence and the republic was re-established, and Machiavelli ran to retake the office he had left but the reputation that The Prince had established made people think his philosophy was like the Medici, so he was not elected.

        Desire to have a political position in Medici’s empire and his torture.

When Soderini surrendered the city to Medici’s rule, it was the end of everything Machiavelli had worked for. Abandoning his idealism, he worked hard to get a job inside Giovanni de’Medici;s regime but his ambitions was short lived. The Medici threw him in jail, tortured him and sent him into exile. he drank in the company of peasants, fought in local villages and railed at his fate. At night, he dressed in old robes of offices, sat at his desk, and wrote. he drew on his experiences in government and composed a manifesto fro pragmatic leadership. Machiavelli wrote a book and called it “The Prince”, and dedicated it to the Medici family. He hoped it might win back his political career but his plan backfired. Machiavelli remained exile for the rest of his life until he died in 1527.

        Machiavelli’s involvement with the republicans.

According to Machiavelli, Republics are better state dictatorships because they privilege the common good, the judgments of the collective are superior to those of the prince/dictator. Republicanism is better at selecting princes from among the people. Thus, a virtuous prince should favor a republic with transparent institutions and promotes the common good as this will facilitate the maintenance of a stable state. Additionally, the best way to perpetuate the state and glory of a leader after his passing is to make sure that there are multiple caretakers rather than a single person. In this process the “perpetual” republic is achieved, a republic that constantly renews itself.

        Briefly compare the relatedness of The Prince and The Discourses on Livy

The description within the Prince talks about the aim of princes, such as glory and survival, and it justifies the use of immoral means to achieve them and it also talks about the ways on how to be a tyrant and how to maintain your power in the state. On the other hand, the discourse on Livy also talks about how to have a republic that preserves liberty and is free of corruption and the establishment of a regime in a state.

        Did Machiavelli consider morality in his works and political thought?

Machiavelli stated that morality and immorality should only be held to specific standards. In his work in the Prince, he wrote that a prince must be just as wise and just as fierce as need to be remained feared but not hated and just as good to be respected but not thought weak. The rulers of a state should know how to manipulate men and control them in seizing power to govern them, to deal with other rulers and to carry out all their duties of government.

Historical Context

Niccolò Machiavelli was born on May 3, 1469, in Florence, Italy, and passed his childhood peacefully, receiving the humanistic education customary for young men of the Renaissance middle class. He also spent two years studying business mathematics, then worked for the next seven years in Rome for a Florentine banker. After returning to Florence in 1494, he witnessed the expulsion of the Medici family, oligarchic despots who had ruled Florence for decades, and the rise of Girolamo Savanorola, a Dominican religious zealot who took control of the region shortly thereafter.

Italy at that time became the scene of intense political conflict. The city-states of Florence, Milan, Venice, and Naples fought for control of Italy, as did the papacy, France, Spain, and the Holy Roman Empire. Each of these powers attempted to pursue a strategy of playing the other powers off of one other, but they also engaged in less honorable practices such as blackmail and violence. The same year that Machiavelli returned to Florence, Italy was invaded by Charles VIII of France—the first of several French invasions that would occur during Machiavelli’s lifetime. These events influenced Machiavelli’s attitudes toward government, forming the backdrop for his later impassioned pleas for Italian unity.

Because Savanorola criticized the leadership of the Church, Pope Alexander VI cut his reign short by excommunicating him in 1497. The next year, at the age of twenty-nine, Machiavelli entered the Florentine government as head of the Second Chancery and secretary to the Council of Ten for War. In his role as chancellor, he was sent to France on a diplomatic mission in 1500. He met regularly with Pope Alexander and the recently crowned King Louis XII. In exchange for a marriage annulment, Louis helped the pope establish his son, Cesare Borgia, as the duke of Romagna. The intrigues of these three men would influence Machiavelli’s political thought, but it was Borgia who would do the most to shape Machiavelli’s opinions about leadership. Borgia was a cunning, cruel, and vicious politician, and many people despised him. Nevertheless, Machiavelli believed Borgia had the traits necessary for any leader who would seek to unify Italy.

In 1500, Machiavelli married Marietta di Lodovico Corsini, with whom he had six children. Three years later, Pope Alexander VI became sick with malaria and died. Alexander VI’s successor died after less than a month in office, and Julius II, an enemy of Borgia’s, was elected. Julius II later banished Borgia to Spain, where he died in 1506.

Meanwhile, Machiavelli helped raise and train a Florentine civil militia in order to reduce Florence’s dependence on mercenaries. Later that year, he served as Florentine diplomat to Pope Julius, whose conduct as the “warrior pope” he observed firsthand. In 1512, the Medici family regained control of Florence, and Machiavelli was dismissed from office. A year later he was wrongly accused of participating in a conspiracy to restore the republic, held in jail for three weeks, and tortured on the rack. He left Florence for the quiet town of Sant’Andrea and decided to pursue a career in writing. In 1513 he began writing his Discourses on the First Ten Books of Titus Livius, a book that focused on states controlled by a politically active citizenry. It was not finished until 1521, mainly because he interrupted his work on Discourses to write The Prince.

Machiavelli desperately wanted to return to politics. One of his goals in writing The Prince was to win the favor of Lorenzo de’ Medici, then-governor of Florence and the person to whom the book is dedicated; Machiavelli hoped to land an advisory position within the Florentine government. But Medici received the book indifferently, and Machiavelli did not receive an invitation to serve as an official. The public’s reaction to The Prince was also indifferent at first. But slowly, as word spread, the book began to be criticized as immoral, evil, and wicked.

Besides the Discourses, Machiavelli went on to write The Art of War and a comedic play, The Mandrake. After Lorenzo’s premature death in 1519, his successor, Giulio, gave Machiavelli a commission to write The Florentine History as well as a few small diplomatic jobs. Machiavelli also wrote The Life of Castruccio Castracani in 1520 and Clizia, a comedic play. In 1526, Giulio de’ Medici (now Pope Clement VII), at Machiavelli’s urging, created a commission to examine Florence’s fortifications and placed Machiavelli on it.

In 1527, the diplomatic errors of the Medici pope resulted in the sack of Rome by Charles V’s mercenaries. The Florentines expelled their Medici ruler, and Machiavelli tried to retake the office he had left so before. But his reputation got in the way of his ambitions. He was now too closely associated with the Medicis, and the republic rejected him. Soon, Machiavelli’s health began to fail him, and he died several months later, on June 21, 1527.

Machiavelli's Rejection

            Rejection on Christian values

Machiavelli was one of the first to depart from the idea of politics as nothing more than an instrument in the plan of God. He was concerned with defining power, and expressing his idea that politics should be seen as an activity in its own right. He is an exponent of humanism, a belief system based on principle that people’s spiritual and emotional needs can be fulfilled without following a religion. He feels that politics should deal with facts rather than with abstractions; he is interested in the present state of man, rather than the religious ideal. He believes in an extreme separation of church and state, which was an opinion that did not win him favor among the religious.

It cannot be denied that religion has an influence over the way a government functions. Machiavelli examines these various ideas concerning the role of religion and principalities in his book, The Prince. He believes that it is good to encourage morality and religious principles among the people. He thinks that these are necessary factors for keeping the people productive and obedient. He even stated that the religiously ruled ecclesiastical principalities are desired, for the laws of religion already govern their people, and therefore less subject to mutiny or civil disobedience.

However, while Machiavelli is in favor of religion on part of the people, it seems he views it more as a mere tool than as a true institution of faith. He looks upon religion as a tool that could be utilized to keep the public from becoming unruly, since religion tends to constantly strike the fear of damnation into its followers. Supporting the idea of Machiavelli’s callous view of religion is the fact that he feels the ruler himself has no obligation to live by the same religious ethics a do his people. The ruler is above such things as religion, morality, and even good and evil. Machiavelli promotes such religiously unsanctioned methods as the use of cruelty, deceit or even murder, as long as they are used intelligently and secretly enough to have results beneficial to the user.

As Machiavelli wrote, “… in actions of all men, and especially of princes, where there is no court to appeal to, one looks to the end. So let princes win and maintain its rate; the means will always be judge honorable”. In other words, the justifies the means; if a prince can gain power and maintain his state to the fullest, he will always be praised and rewarded, and the methods used to gain his power, however dubious they may be, become null and void. In fact, Machiavelli writes,”… it is not necessary for a prince to have all the above mentioned qualities in fact, but it is indeed necessary to appear to have them. Nay, dare I say this, that by having them and always observing them, they are harmful; and by appearing to have them, they are useful as it is to appear merciful, faithful, humane, religious…”. With this quote, Machiavelli expresses his opinion that it is not only acceptable for a ruler to demonstrate immoral tactics to gain power, once he is in power, moral attributes such as ethics humanity and even religion are not only unnecessary, but harmful.

Niccolo Machiavelli: The Prince

                Why do we read the prince? What is the main objective of Machiavelli when he wrote Il Principe?

 Niccolo Machiavelli's "The Prince", written in 1532, is in essence a leadership manual. It consists of advice on how to gain and maintain power.

 The precepts set out by Machiavelli are not restricted to the time they were written - they are instructions on dealing with people and organisations - and they are as relevant to a modern captain of industry as they were to a renaissance lord.

For practical reasons, Il Principe was written to Lorenzo di Medici who had recently risen to become ruler of Florence with the help of his cousin who was currently pope. This abolished the pre-existing Republic in which Machiavelli held a very high level "cabinet position". As a result of this association, Machiavelli was forced out of his position and moved into a farmhouse outside of the city limits. The prince is written in order to curry favor with Lorenzo by attempting to write a handbook for rulers. Although he had written extensively in the discourses about the superior nature of republics, the Prince only talks about absolute monarchs and their consolidation and maintaining of power.

      Characters in The Prince:

Francesco Sforza –the primary example of a new prince who acquires his principality by his abilities. He was a soldier who rose through the ranks to become Duke of Milan in 1450 with the help of the Venetians. Machiavelli has high regard for Francesco Sforza because he was a mighty military leader. His sons, however, lost the throne because they rejected the life of military discipline. Machiavelli criticizes the castle Francesco Sforza built in Milan because the family's reliance upon it has kept them insulated from the people. This violates one of Machiavelli's most cherished rules: do not be hated by the people.

Cesare Borgia –the son of Pope Alexander VI who inherited much power and territory from his father, known as Duke Valentino, Cesare Borgia is considered by Machiavelli to have been a most capable leader and the embodiment of what a prince should be. Machiavelli suggests that an ambitious prince looking for a recent model to follow should imitate Cesare Borgia. Machiavelli uses many events of Cesare Borgia's life to illustrate how and why he was successful. Machiavelli believes that Cesare Borgia would have succeeded in uniting all of Italy had he not fallen ill. Examining Cesare Borgia's life, Machiavelli concludes that in order for a prince to ultimately succeed, he needs both ability and fortune.

Pope Julius II – the warrior pope who succeeded Alexander VI. He is noted for his defense of the temporal and spiritual power of the Catholic Church.

Savaronola – the Dominican friar who held power over Florence before the takeover by the Republican government that Machiavelli served under. Savaronola is an example of an unarmed prophet that falls.

King Ferdinand II –the king of Spain at the time Machiavelli wrote The Prince, King Ferdinand established his throne by marrying Isabella, uniting the kingdoms of Castile and Aragon. Known as The Catholic, King Ferdinand was closely associated with the Church, joining the Holy League in order to defeat France. He also succeeded in driving the Moors out of Spain in the name of religion. Machiavelli refers to King Ferdinand throughout the book, using him as an example of a ruler who has, through his shrewd political maneuverings, accomplished great things. King Ferdinand is said to preach peace and faith but his actions clearly betray his words. Yet, Machiavelli considers the king's apparent hypocrisy to be acceptable and even necessary. Machiavelli also praises King Ferdinand for undertaking great endeavors as to arouse awe in his subjects.

King Louis XII –Machiavelli uses the military and political exploits of Louis XII in Italy as examples of what not to do in maintaining power over a newly conquered territory. Louis XII makes several crucial mistakes in his attempts to take Italy. Machiavelli, in describing the king's mistakes, emphasizes one key point: that he who causes another to become powerful ruins himself.

Lorenzo de' Medici –the Duke of Urbino and the grandson of Lorenzo the Magnificent, he is the recipient of Machiavelli's work. Machiavelli originally intended to dedicate the work to Lorenzo the Magnificent's son, Giuliano de' Medici, but he died in 1516. Machiavelli dedicates the book to Lorenzo de' Medici in hopes that the young prince would restore Italy to its former glory. Machiavelli believes that Lorenzo de' Medici is in the best situation to unite the Italians because of his family's great influence in Florence and over the Church-Lorenzo's uncle being Pope Leo X.

Emperor Maximilian II –the meperor of the Holy Roman Empire, he was considered to be a ruler who was not respected because he was given to changing his mind and never being decisive. Machiavelli warns that a prince who is not resolute in his decisions will never gain honor, especially among his advisers.

Machiavelli: Modern Thinker

      His advices for Rulers: Winning over Fortuna and the classical Roman virtues

       The Good Man and the Political Man

  Good man is most likely according to Machiavelli are not prince and that they are the most deserving one, they maybe not the one ruling because the undeserving is in their stead, and since the addresses are those private individuals they have time to read because unlike the princes who only have time for short treatise, but even though that these are private individuals they are very interested in politics. Good men, men of quality or excellent men are those men who cannot abstain themselves from politics because they are “not allowed to abstain by others”. Politics for them is like nature, and that somehow politics will enter into their lives in one mode or two: it will be either that such men will be “constrained to be princes” or the princes will constrain them “either to distance [themselves] from or to bind [themselves] to them”. A good man must choose the character of their relation to politics, to fail to choose is to fail to be free and to be completely subject to necessity. It is also said that a good man is a political man.

       What makes a good Prince

A good prince must live with integrity and not with craft. He must be a man and a beast, when he contests by the use of law then he is a man and he is a beast if he contests by the use of force. The first option is more frequently used but is not always sufficient and so therefore the use of the second option is necessary, and therefore it is essential or necessary for a prince to understand how to avail of being a man and beast. During the time of the prince it was taught to them figuratively about how the princes of old like Achilles were given to Chiron the centaur (half horse half man) to be trained and nurse, and so the princes that time was taught with Chiron’s discipline so they had a half-beast and half-man for a teacher. It is necessary that the prince should know how to make use of both natures, because one without the other is durable. If a prince chooses to adopt of being a beast he must choose to be a fox and a lion, because if lion alone, the lion cannot defend himself to the snares and if fox alone, the fox cannot defend himself from the wolves, so it is necessary for the prince to be both fox who recognizes the snares and to be a lion to scare the wolves. Those who rely simply on the lion do not understand what they are about. Therefore a wise lord cannot, nor ought he to, keep faith when such observance may be turned against him, and when the reasons that caused him to pledge it exist no longer. If men were entirely good this precept would not hold, but because they are bad, and will not keep faith with you, you too are not bound to observe it with them. Nor will there ever be wanting to a prince legitimate reasons to excuse this nonobservance. Of these endless modern examples could be given, showing how many treaties and engagements have been made void and of no effect through the faithlessness of princes; and he who has known best how to employ the fox has succeeded best. But it is necessary to know well how to disguise this characteristic, and to be a great pretender and dissembler; and men are so simple, and so subject to present necessities, that he who seeks to deceive will always find someone who will allow himself to be deceived. One recent example I cannot pass over in silence. Alexander VI did nothing else but deceive men, nor ever thought of doing otherwise, and he always found victims; for there never was a man who had greater power in asserting, or who with greater oaths would affirm a thing, yet would observe it less; nevertheless his deceits always succeeded according to his wishes, because he well understood this side of mankind. Therefore it is unnecessary for a prince to have all the good qualities I have enumerated, but it is very necessary to appear to have them. That to have them and always to observe them is injurious, and that to appear to have them is useful; to appear merciful, faithful, humane, religious, upright, and to be so, but with a mind so framed that should you require not to be so, you may be able and know how to change to the opposite.

   Contradicting Literature of Machiavelli

 The Use of Power in Political Power

Machiavelli recommended that a prudent ruler cannot, and must not, honour his word when it places him at a disadvantage … Because men are wretched creatures who would not keep their word to you, you need not keep your word to them’. Machiavelli then recommended that ‘one must know how to colour one’s actions and be a great liar and deceiver’. Further on, Machiavelli explained that a prince who neglected what was actually done by people for what (by rights) should be done was doomed to self-destruction. Someone who always acted virtuously would quickly come to a sticky end among the multitude who were not at all virtuous. Hence the successful political statesman must learn how and when to act in a dishonest and immoral way, and must be much better at acting dishonorably than those around him. Hence the princely statesman must use guile and cunning in order to guarantee the success and prosperity of his kingdom and his people, although this would also mean the preservation of the resplendent riches of political office.

   Cultivating Different Virtues for a Successful Prince

A prince who aims to scale the heights of glory must cultivate the right qualities of princely leadership. He must consider that there is nothing more difficult to carry out , nor more doubtful success, nor more dangerous to handle, that to initiate a new order of things, for in this the reformer then will have enemies that profit in the old order but then he will gain the favor of those who would profit in the new order. It is also necessary to order things so that when they no longer believe, they can be made to believe it by force, this is the case when all armed prophets have conquered unarmed ones. Whoever, deems it necessary in his new principality to secure himself against his enemies, to gain friends to conquer by force or fraud, to make himself beloved and feared by the people followed and reverenced by the soldiers, to destroy those who can or may injure him. He must also introduce innovations into the old customs, he must also be severe and kind, magnanimous and liberal. To suppress the old militia and make a new one, to maintain friendship to other kings and princes in such a way that they are glad to benefit from the prince and that they will be afraid to injure him. A prince who has successfully taken a state should be careful to commit all his cruelties all at once, it is to avoid repeating them every day. If the prince does otherwise he will be obliged to sleep with a knife on his hand and he can never depend on his subjects because they owing continually fresh injuries are unable to also depend to him. Benefits should be granted little by little so that they may be better enjoyed. Above all the price must live with his subjects in a way that no accident of good or evil fortune can deflect him from his course: for necessity arising in adverse times, he might not be in time with severity, and the good that he will do does not profit. A question is also raised that whether it be better for the prince to be loved or feared? Machiavelli answers us with it is better to be loved and feared, but as it is impossible then it is safer to say that it is better feared than loved. For it may be said of men in general that they are ungrateful, voluble, dissemblers, anxious to avoid danger and covetous of gain; as long as you benefit them, they are entirely yours; when the necessity is remote; but when it approaches, they revolt. A prince should not solely rely upon words, w/out making any other preparations is ruined. Friendship gained by purchase and not through grandeur and nobility of spirit is bought but not secure. A prince should make himself be feared, that if he does not gain love he should refrain from being hated, for fear and the absence of hatred may go well together.

    Virtu: The Machiavellian Virtue

Virtu is theorized by Niccolo Machiavelli which is said to be centered on the marital spirit and the ability of a population or leader. It also encompass a broad collection of traits necessary to maintain the state and “achievement of great things”. Machiavelli employs the concept of virtù to refer to the range of personal qualities that the prince will find it necessary to acquire in order to “maintain his state” and to “achieve great things,” the two standard markers of power for him. This makes it brutally clear there can be no equivalence between the conventional virtues and Machiavellian virtù. Machiavelli expects princes of the highest virtù to be capable, as the situation requires, of behaving in a completely evil fashion, for the circumstances of political rule are such that moral viciousness can never be excluded from the realm of possible actions in which the prince may have to engage. Machiavelli's sense of what it is to be a person of virtù can thus be summarized by his recommendation that the prince above all else must acquire a “flexible disposition.” That ruler is best suited for office, on Machiavelli's account, who is capable of varying her/his conduct from good to evil and back again “as fortune and circumstances dictate” (Machiavelli 1965, 66).  The ruler of virtù is bound to be competent in the application of power; to possess virtù is indeed to have mastered all the rules connected with the effective application of power. Virtù is to power politics what conventional virtue is to those thinkers who suppose that moral goodness is sufficient to be a legitimate ruler: it is the touchstone of political success.

       Theory of Political Power and the powerful state

State is the highest form of human association. It is indispensable for the promotion of human welfare. State is to be worshipped even by sacrificing the individual for the interest of the state. A ruler must remember that whatever brings success is due to power. For acquiring political power he can use any type of means. Political statesman plays an important role in organizing state, and providing it with safety and security. Hence the major theme of the prince is the process of acquiring power. Modern power politics cannot be thought of without any reference to Machiavelli and his book, the prince.

Machiavelli explained about statecraft and powerful state in the form of advice to the prince.

According to Machiavelli, state is the “End” and individuals is the “means”

Machiavelli’s powerful state tilts towards totalitarian system

Machiavelli was against individualism

The Principalities and Advice to the Prince on Statecraft

        The mistakes of King Louis XII

-King Louis XII: Machiavelli uses the military and political exploits of Louis XII in Italy as examples of what not to do in maintaining power over a newly conquered territory. Louis XII makes several crucial mistakes in his attempts to take Italy. Machiavelli, in describing the king's mistakes, emphasizes one key point: that he who causes another to become powerful ruins himself.

       Leaders acquiring power through virtue

-To acquire states by virtue is a matter of doing it by one’s own arms; and to do so by fortune is often a matter of doing it with other people’s arms–this seems suggested by the titles of P 6 and 7. It will also explain why in P 14 M categorically states that “a prince should have no other object, nor any other thought, no take anything else as his art but that of war and its orders and discipline; for that is the only art which is of concern to one who commands. Acquiring power through virtue is by working on it and by striving hard to achieve that thing by our own self. Leaders gets power because they know how to work on it by their own self they don’t depend on other people instead that they command to have a good help from people.

Virtue is a physical strength either potentially or as an actual force. Virtue is important to Leaders because without this concept they can’t acquire so much power that they wanted. Having a virtue is being independent Itself. Virtue is linked with mans capacity to understand the world and control it.

Virtue, then concerns the ability of human prudence, will, and action to control the effects of human nature and history. But the highest and most powerful in gaining power is through Virtue because it came from our own idea and in our own strength without the involvement of others. And most importantly it came from our own hands and own power.

       Leaders Acquiring power through Fortune relying on the good will of others.(Cesare Borja )

 Cesare Borgia is an example of a prince who came to power through fortune, but lost his power through an unfavorable change in fortune, even though he was a great leader and did almost everything right. Princes who come to power through evil means may gain power but not glory because of their conduct. Those who come to power by civil means (election by the nobles or the people) must remember to win the support of the people because they are crucial in times of adversity. Machiavelli also mentions the ecclesiastical principality with the pope as the ecclesiastical prince.

In describing how the position of pope has come to wield much power, Machiavelli does not make a great distinction between a religious prince and a territorial prince. Cesare Borgia is considered by Machiavelli to have been a most capable leader and the embodiment of what a prince should be. Fortune thus personifies the accidental, the unforeseen and often unfortunate things in life. Leaders acquire power through fortune and by relying the good will of others its like depending the good will of people.

Machiavelli views human virtue as associated with the ability to control fortune. Those who will rise of power is through fortune and the arms of others. Since virtue and fortune are not mutually exclusive terms, the amount of luck a man has bears no necessary relation to his personal abilities. It is therefore possible to consider the case of a man unusually indebted to fortune while possessing unusual ability with which to counteract his dependence. Fortune is not given to us it will eventually happen.

This is the case of Cesare Borgia :

Cesare Borgia, called Duke Valentino by the vulgar, acquired his state through

the fortune of his father [Pope Alexander VI] and lost it through the same,

notwithstanding the fact that he made use of every deed and did all those things that

should be done by a prudent and virtuous man to put his roots in the states that the

arms and fortune of others had given him.

  Leaders acquiring power through wickedness. The case of the King of Syracuse, Agathocles of Sicily and that of Oliverotto of Fermo.

One of the leaders that acquired their power through wickedness is the King of Syracuse, Agathocles of Sicily. He was a son of a potter, through all the changes in his fortunes always led an infamous life. Nevertheless he accompanied his infamies, with the ability of mind and body through this he was able rose as the Praetor of Syracuse. Using that position he deliberately resolved to make himself prince and to seize by violence without obligation to others, that which had been conceded to him by assent, he came to an understanding for this purpose with Amilicar, the Carthaginian, who, with his army, was fighting in Sicily.

He assembled the senate and the people, who thought he was to discuss something about the Republic, and at his signal his soldiers killed all the senators and the wealthiest people. He then seized the princedom of the city in this manner, and there was no civil commotion. Even though the Carthaginians routed him twice, and ultimately besieged, but then he was able to defend his city and not only defend it, but left part of his men to defend it and the other half marched with him to attack Africa and in a short time  raised the siege of Syracuse. Reduced to extreme necessity, the Carthaginians was compelled to come to terms with Agathocles, thereby leaving Sicily to him and had to be contented with the possession of Africa.

It is not considered a talent to deceive friends, kill fellow-citizens, to be without faith, mercy, and religion. Such manner may gain you an empire but not glory. Nevertheless, if the courage of Agathocles in entering into and extricating himself from dangers be considered, and his greatness of mind in enduring, overcoming the hardships. He should not be esteemed less than the most notable captain. Nevertheless his barbaric ways and inhumanity with infinite wickedness cannot be permitted for him to be celebrated among those men of excellence. What he achieved cannot be attributed either to fortune or genius.

          Discuss and Share: Raison D ‘etat; the end justifies the means; the State as sovereign, autonomous and non-religious; double standard of morality; Human nature is low and ungrateful; Popularity of the Prince; Council of wise Men Not of Flatters; Separate of Politics and Religion; and Remaining free from Emotions

 Raison D ‘etat

 It is define as a purely political reason for action on the part of a ruler or government, especially where a departure from openness, justice, or honesty is involved. For Richelieu's concept of raison d'etat had no built-in limitations. How far would one go before the interests of the state were deemed satisfied? How many wars were needed to achieve security? Wilsonian idealism, proclaiming a selfless policy, is possessed of the constant danger of neglecting the interests of the state; Richelieu's raison d'etat threatens self-destructive tours &force. That is what happened to France after Louis XIV assumed the throne. Richelieu had be- queathed to the French kings a preponderantly strong state with a weak and divided Germany and a decadent Spain on its borders. But Louis XIV gained no peace of mind from security; he saw in it an opportunity for conquest. In his overzealous pursuit of raison d'etat, Louis XIV alarmed the rest of Europe and brought together an anti-French coalition which, in the end, thwarted his design.

  The end justifies the means

The Greek playwright Sophocles wrote ‘The end excuses any evil’ the thought was later rendered by Ovid the Roman poet as ‘The result justifies the deed’ in Heroides. Micheal Wigglesworth in his “Diary” again offered another explanation to this phrase, he says “Anything is acceptable if it leads to a successful result”.

Then we can conclude that these phrase would mean that no matter how wicked a thing or plan is done or executed if its results have created something for the betterment of it resulted to something great then the deed made will not or does not matter anymore.

   Double standard of morality

 A double standard is the application of different sets of principles for similar situations, or by two different people in the same situation. A double standard may take the form of an instance in which certain concepts (often, for example, a word, phrase, social norm, or rule) are perceived as acceptable to be applied by one group of people, but are considered unacceptable—taboo—when applied by another group.

The concept of a double standard has long been applied to the fact that different moral structures are often applied to men and women in society.

A double standard can therefore be described as a biased or morally unfair application of the principle that all are equal in their freedoms. Such double standards are seen as unjustified because they violate a basic maxim of modern legal jurisprudence: that all parties should stand equal before the law. Double standards also violate the principle of justice known as impartiality, which is based on the assumption that the same standards should be applied to all people, without regard to subjective bias or favoritism based on social class, rank, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual orientation, age or other distinctions. A double standard violates this principle by holding different people accountable according to different standards. The phrase "life is not fair" may be invoked in order to mollify concerns over double standards.

   Human nature is low and ungrateful

If a prince can not be both feared and loved, Machiavelli suggests, it would be better for him to be feared bey the citizens within his own principality. He makes the generalization that men are, "...ungrateful, fickle, liars, and deceivers, they shun danger and are greedy for profit; while you treat them well they are yours." He characterizes men as being self centered and not willing to act in the best interest of the state,"and when the prince is in danger they turn against him." Machiavelli reinforces the prince's need to be feared by stating:

In order to win honor, Machaivelli suggests that a prince must be readily willing to deceive the citizens. One way is to "...show his esteem for talent actively encouraging the able and honoring those who excel in their professions...so that they can go peaceably about their business." By encouraging citizens to excel at their professions he would also be encouraging them to "...increase the prosperity of the their state." These measures, though carried out in deception, would bring the prince honor and trust amongst the citizens, especially those who were in the best positions to oppose him.

 Popularity of The Prince

Niccolo Machiavelli's The Prince is arguably the most popular book about politics ever written. Its observations about human behavior are as true today as they were five hundred years ago. In this book, Machiavelli offers advice to politicians regarding how to gain power and how to keep it.

Although modern readers think that a "prince" is someone who is destined to inherit control of his country, the princes of Machiavelli's time were by no means that secure: the prince had to be careful to keep the support of his citizens if he wanted to remain in power. The methods that Machiavelli suggests for leaders to keep public support are just as relevant for today's elected officials as they were for leaders of the sixteenth century.

 Council of wise Men Not of Flatterers

A prince who is not experienced should take counsel from more than one he will never get united counsels, nor will he know how to unite them. Each of the counselors will think of his own interests, and the prince will not know how to control them or to see through them. And they are not to be found otherwise, because men will always prove untrue to you unless they are kept honest by constraint. Therefore it must be inferred that good counsels, whence soever they come, are born of the wisdom of the prince, and not the wisdom of the prince from good counsels.

      Separate of Politics and Religion

The separation of church and state is the distance in the relationship between organized religion and the nation state.

Although the concept of separation has been adopted in a number of countries, there are varying degrees of separation depending on the applicable legal structures and prevalent views toward the proper role of religion in society. While a country's policy may be to have a definite distinction in church and state, there may be an "arm's length distance" relationship in which the two entities interact as independent organizations. A similar but typically stricter principle of laïcité has been applied in France and Turkey, while some socially secularized countries such as Denmark and the United Kingdom have maintained constitutional recognition of an official state religion. The concept parallels various other international social and political ideas, including secularism, disestablishment, religious liberty, and religious pluralism.

The degree of separation varies from total separation mandated by a constitution, as in India and Singapore; to an official religion with total prohibition of the practice of any other religion, as in the Maldives.

        Remaining free from emotions

Remaining free from one’s emotions especially when one is making critical decisions, because this can cloud logic and hence it will result to poor decision making and can result to damages. Take for example when one is so angry and decides to let anger take over him/her and so then the person will do things or say things that when one is finally sober of the overwhelming anger will come to realize and regret the things one has said and done. So then we can say that when one has to make critical or make decisions for a serious matter it is much better to set aside emotions.