Would you support Machiavellian philosophy

If you had lived around Italy near the 14the century there would have a great Philospher called Machiavellian he is the one who made quates famours as

'

The end justifies the means

"A political leader should be held to same standards as a private citizen

"It is better for a leader to be feared than to be loved."

http://www.epinions.com/content_3196625028

Would you support his ideas, or condemn them like the pope did?

I would've supported his philosophies. It was crucial in Italy to have unity, even if it meant absolutism. It would've been nice to have a more congenial form of government, but to protect Italy from foreign intervention, any form of a central government would have been good.

Of course I would! If it is for the sake and benefit of the State. I do agree with his book The Prince. What matters is the commonwealth of the people. If there is no commonwealth within the state, then there is no order. The state comes first. Is for the sake of civilazation.

I support some of his philosophy (the ends can justify the means). I'd like to see the last one (about being feared) in context, however--I am inclined to disagree with it. It is the duty of the state to protect the quality of life of its citizens, and I don't think having a ruler you fear does this.

yea I support some but not all

Actually, Macchiavelli said "the good end justifies the means..." there is a subtle difference... "good" to Macchiavelli was "That which benefits the greater number of people for the longest time," regardless of any other moral view on the matter, or religious limits... in other words, as Spock would have said, "The needs of the many far outweigh the needs of the few..." even to the extent that if the torture and murder of the minority led to a benefit to the majority, it was right and proper to torture and murder that minority...

But ... and I just know I'm about to sound preachy, but I can't help myself ... is a society that is so morally decayed that they would tollerate the torture and murder of others for their personal gain really "better off" than a society that does not gain the benefits that torture and murder may bring?

No.

I only read the Prince. It would be perfect if I wanna be a dictator but that is not my way of life 😛

Just good for an unprincipled person or agovernor who wants to keep the power over his subdits. " The Prince" The most liked book of Benito Mussolini, it principles have been followed and teached by all the ones who seek power without principles.

As Machiavel wrote: A governor shall be corrupted and false, must lie to the people without moral and general benefits. The primary objectif is to keep the government no mather how. The support of the people should be searched to get the power, but when you got the power, them all the cruelties should be commited at once.

Nicolau Machiavell was a political genius, but amoral. The only majority he protects is itself.

I hope there is no thread to agree with the Borgia too. Should be the next step 😛

"War should be the study of a Prince"
14th century italy was a very volitle situation... merchant kings... yet mach. influenced many tyrants who took his philosophy to heart.

Machiavelli talks pure power politics, not necessarily relevant to modern democracies.

About the love/fear thing. Machiavelli's point was this. If you rule, is it better to be loved or feared? Both help you rule, but on balance it is better to be feared, because people that fear you will do as you say, whereas people who love you will do things they THINK you want, but you may not. He didn't say being loved was bad, just that for control, fear was better. But that was the thing- he was talking of control, on the idea that only a totally controlled state is stable and therefore any good, and again that might not be relevant today.

But either is better than being hated, which will only lead to your overthrow.

It is all pure power without a humanisitc angle, which he was not interested in talking in. It is like his point about hurting people. He says try to avoid hurting people, but if you DO have to hurt someone, make sure you hurt them SO badly that they can never come back to oppose you again (including killing the person or annihilating the group, if necessary), because by hurting someone you create an enemy and you must never allow yourself powerful enemies.

Machiavelli therefore advocates the use of maximum (i.e. dearly) force when you are motivated to act to oppose someone. His logic is impeccable but it is all very harsh.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
not necessarily relevant to modern democracies.

I agree with what you wrote, except this little part 🙂

Still is a nuclear issue on some actual politics studies and it has been applied currently

I remember to watch sometime ago on tv, where some politicians proudly were saying that "The Prince" still is their primary influence.
Ofc that "The Prince has good political principles too, but the issue were not the "good" principles, but the way to manipulate people and the media to help them to keep the power. Unhappyly still actual.

And one "good" - fictional - example was the tv serie "Yes Minister" and Sir Humphrey. The perfect example of a soft and likeable Machiavellic politician. 😄

well ush as usual I have to agree wiv ya

As 'not necessarily' os not a definitve yes/no statement, Corlindel, it seems an odd thing to disagree with merely by example...

Well. I dont remember the names of the British "Tatcher" conservativ government who support what I wrote by their own words. But I remember very well what they said. And for me there are no doubts about the influences that have an actual neo-conservativ admnistration. Only remembering nations with democracy as intitution.

Actually I agree with most of what he has said, apart from one thing: I don't really think that the end justifies the means.

depending on the end it probably will justify the means

E.G. if There was a way to be absolutely certain that we would have world peace after we kill 100 million ppl, those 100 million ppl would pay the price if it was up to (JUST AN EXAMPLE DONT COME NAGGING ABOUT THIS PLZ)

I still think it's wrong Fire ❌ I don't think it's fair killing anyone for that, and also that is a fake dillema 😬 You should support your statement with facts or at least something feasible 😖

I believe nukes did there job.... the fear that the pose caused them only to ever be used once.... no major world wars since..... only these pathetic excuses for wars 700+ casualties lol.... we use to get 1000+ a day during those conflicts... technology is no better compared to those days. So in the case of Power politics nuclear weapons are succesful... but Mach. advocated secret police and massive executions and total intoleration of freedom of speech... opposite of democracy as those prior to me have suggested.

I have got in trouble for endorsing this philosophy (though as a joke).
According to its criteria it would be ethical to massacre all those carrying HIV etc

i would never agree with machiavelli.

Thanks for bumping this thread clove - i'd missed it.

I'm amazed to see people saying they agree with the ideals and ideas of Machiavellian philosophy.

And then i'm amazed that i still get amazed at how other people think.