THE PRINCE

When discussing The Prince, by Machiavelli, our class discussed two important factors in the book, the 

idea of a powerful versus virtuous leader and also the idea of how the prince should appear. Another 

part of the book I found interesting was in Chapter 15, where Machiavelli states:

“Many men have imagined republics and principalities that never really existed at all. Yet the way men live is so far removed from the way they ought to live that anyone who abandons what is for what should be pursues his downfall rather than his preservation; for a man who strives after in all his acts is sure to come to ruin, since there are so many men who are not good” (61).

I think this coincides with what we discussed on Thursday, when we discussed how the prince should appear in front of his subjects. Although the prince may appear one way in front of the state, it does not necessarily mean he “practices what he preaches” or even agrees with the decisions he makes for the benefit of the state. However, if he keeps these personal opinions to himself, I don’t think it matters what his personal beliefs are if he appears one way and everyone thinks the way he appears is the way he is all the time. Like the grandmother crossing the street example, if she doesn’t know the motives behind the two helpers, she will appreciate both the same. I think this is what defines a good Machiavellian prince; someone who makes the decision that profits the state although he make morally disagree with the decision he makes. By doing this, the prince can keep most of his citizens happy and allow them to continue leading the life they have, because it keeps the state in good order. In Chapter 17, Machiavelli discusses where it is better to be loved or be feared, and states, “disorders harm the entire citizenry, while the executions ordered by a prince harm only a few individuals” (65). According to Machiavelli’s definition of a good prince, a powerful leader is more successful than a virtuous leader, and a feared leader is more effective than loved one. As we discussed in class, Hitler was an immoral leader, but had thousands of followers, so can his strength and effectiveness as a leader be questioned? I think according to Machiavelli’s definition he makes a good prince. What do you think? Do you think the Machiavellian definition of a prince is still in effect today?