Machiavelli s pros and cons on politics

Pro I just had to post this debate because it is something I feel strongly about. Your challenge, as my opponent, is to disprove this statement.

Machiavelli s pros and cons on politics

Contact Author Two distinctly different accounts of political life are given by Aristotle and Machiavelli. In contrast, Machiavelli gives an account of political life revolving around circumstance and fortune rather than being any necessary state. He viewed political life as a means to an end rather than an end in itself like Aristotle.

Aristotle Aristotle For Aristotle, the polis was a natural association which springs from other such associations. The first of these is the household. In this association, like all others, there is a naturally ruling element and naturally ruled element; the husband rules the wife, the master-slave, and parent-child.

The ruling element rules by virtue of intelligence and the ruled occupy their position by virtue of physical power. This balance is similar to that between body and soul, the soul rules the body by virtue of its rationality, and if two men are as different as body and soul, then it is to the benefit of both that the one most resembling the soul should rule.

These associations like the household and village occur naturally and in order to meet some need. The polis while occurring naturally and bringing people together out of need, goes further in it that it parts end up joined for the sake of the good life.

Machiavelli s pros and cons on politics

His teleological argument by definition looks at the man and the polis regarding function and purpose but by arguably getting the premises wrong in assigning the polis as a purpose of man, then so the purpose of the polis itself may be wrongly identified.

If so there would be no reason to believe the good life has any relationship to the polis at all. The ramifications of the relationship between the ruling and ruled elements can be felt in political life.

In this sphere, there is again a ruling and ruled element, with citizens ruling the noncitizens. A citizen is a citizen by virtue of birth, their status passed on like an inheritance from their parents.

But also, to be a true citizen one must act like one and fulfill their obligations to the polis by sharing in political office. Applying this standard to the modern world would certainly be problematic. It would either require that vast sways of the populace were barred from citizenship due to the ratio of population to administrative positions, or it would require re-ordering the modern state into some form of local direct rule.

Talk of possibly re-ordering the state leads on then to how Aristotle thought that government should be ordered. He gives three classifications or true forms of governance; these are kingship, aristocracy, and polity. There are also three other possibilities, which are corresponding perversions of the forms.

These are tyranny, oligarchy, and democracy. In the true forms there is rule with a view to the collective interest or common good, a view to the many. The perversions promote private interest rather than the public common good.An advantage to being the kind of prince Machiavelli advises is that such a leader is likely to hold on to power.

He will be pragmatic about what people, in reality, are like, and not lose his. Welcome to Soapboxie Let's get political. Write for Us. Popular Articles. US Politics. 21 Reasons Why Ronald Reagan Was a Terrible President.

Machiavelli and Political Thought Report this Argument Pro In the meantime, here's a picture of a statue of the man who inspires and fortifies my arguments. Report this Argument Con This is a very intresting debate.
{dialog-heading} It is speculated that he attended the University of Florence, and even a cursory glance at his corpus reveals that he received an excellent humanist education.
Debate: The ends justify the means: Is Machiavelli correct? | leslutinsduphoenix.com Are you sure you want to delete this answer? Yes Sorry, something has gone wrong.
Expert Answers He will be pragmatic about what people, in reality, are like, and not lose his throne or be disillusioned by adhering to false ideals of what people should be. On the other hand, to be the kind of leader Machiavelli likes involves certain disadvantages.
Niccolò Machiavelli (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) Niccolo Machiavelli and the Prince Biography Niccolo Machiavelli is one of the major political philosophers of our times. He was an Essayist, dramatist historian, sketch writer, biographer, dialogist, writer of novellas and a poet.

by jeff61b What Is Donald Trump's Religion? by Catherine Giordano Pros and Cons of Gun Control Laws in the US. by Paul Goodman Aug 11,  · Best Answer: Machiavelli's insistence on the practicality of his political advice is most evident in his consideration of the personality, character, and conduct of the successful ruler.

(Prince 15) No matter what idealistic notions are adopted as principles of private morality, he argued, there is no Status: Resolved. Machiavelli's insistence on the practicality of his political advice is most evident in his consideration of the personality, character, and conduct of the successful ruler.(Prince 15) No matter what idealistic notions are adopted as principles of private morality, he argued, there is no guarantee that other people will follow them, and that puts the honorable or .

Niccolo Machiavelli is one of the major political philosophers of our times. He was an Essayist, dramatist historian, sketch writer, biographer, dialogist, writer of novellas and a poet.

Machiavelli was born on May 3 rd,, in a family of a Doctor of Law, in Florence Italy. In he helped to. Machiavelli described a situation in which a ruler opresses his people. He justifies the ruler's action by saying that the outcome, however is ultimately better for the people.

The problem is .

Soapboxie - Politics