Comments on: Renaissance Lit, Discussion Question #1 - The Prince

By: Vanessa Robles

Vanessa Robles — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 21:04:34 +0000

I’m going to have to agree with Elizabeth. I think that ethics and stability are both equally important in order for a nation to exist. But, if i had to just pick one I think that I would say ethics. It is because of ethics that a nation can even be thought of as stable. If ethics weren’t involved there can’t possibly be any stability in a nation because everyone would be doing there own thing. Boundaries are needed in order for people to know what they can and cannot do, and that is where ethics comes in. On the other hand I think that Machiavelli would not agree with me at all. From what I have read so far he seems to be more concerned about power and maintaining that power rather than placing any importance on ethics. He says, “Thus it happens in matters of state; for knowing afar off (which it is only given to a prudent man to do) the evils that are brewing, they are easily cured,” (_9). He seems to be suggesting that anyone that can potentially create a problem can be easily taken care of, which in my eyes basically means killing them. Machiavelli clearly believes in stability over ethics.

By: Matt

Matt — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 13:34:03 +0000

I agree with Davio, Mary, Dan, and Mike that the stability of a nation is far more important then the ethnics. However, without finding a balance between the two then it is almost impossible to maintain. If ethnics is focused on too much then the nation that one is trying to occupy and hold will walk on its own instead of following a ruler. But with stability the ruler of a nation can hold unto his nation and captured territories. The stability of a nation can be ensured by the king or in our case with the book a prince by either a military garrison or by the people of the country respecting him through various actions. When stability is gained then one can try to restore ethnicity to the country. Stability compared to ethnicity is much easier to gain then trying to enforce ethnics of one man over the masses. However, when a country is stable then it becomes easier because the county is more willing to agree with you. Machiavelli says that the ethnics and stability are the same but it depends on who is interpreting the reading that effects with is held more valuable. the way the Zach interpreted the reading was that ethnics was more important than stability. However, when Noah read and interpreted the reading he pulled that stability was more important then ethnics that a strong army was more important. the way that I interpreted Machiavelli was that Stability was more important not by much but still more so then ethnics. A new prince has never been known to disarm his subjects, on the contrary, when he has found them dissarmed he always armed them for by arming them these arms become your own. (105, the prince) This quote supports my opinion about stability over ethnicity.

By: Anika

Anika — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 12:15:26 +0000

I believe stability is essential to a strong nation. As much as I would like to say that a government should be based on good morals and ethics, the truth is if a nation has no stability then it will not be effective. Everyman would be for himself which would only promote bad values because everybody would be looking out for their own best interest. Since there would be no stability, the government wouldn’t be able to control crime, and maintain the welfare of its nation. In reality, without the presence of a stable government, there wouldn’t be a nation because there wouldn’t be anyone to represent the nation. I disagree with Kristen, people wouldn’t be held to a certain standard because there wouldn’t be anyone to enforce acceptable values. Just because you are trying to establish a government based on good ethics doesn’t mean the people will follow them. Without a stable government, people will do as the please, however unethical, because they know they know there is nobody to punish them for their actions. Therefore, only after a nation has established stability, will it be able to create an ethical society. Machiavelli would agree with me. He confirms this by stating that a Prince should maintain past customs and only “adapt oneself to unforeseen circumstances” (34). In essence, Machiavelli is saying that a nation must continue on tradition from the past in order for it to be stable and in turn effective. However, he doesn’t mention anything about reforming a nation or its ethics for the good of the people, rather he only considers change when the ruler’s authority is in jeopardy. Machiavelli is only interested in maintaining stability in Nation, he isn’t concerned with ethics.

By: Andres

Andres — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 10:17:38 +0000

I agree with Liana in that without ethics an otherwise seemingly stable nation will collapse with the slightest issue. Without ethics the general population will be unhappy, due to the injustices or the allowed discrimination amongst the citizens and the government.
In order for the people of the nation to follow, admire, and agree with the government, it is necessary for the government to be enforcing proper ethics. Technically a nation without the necessary ethics will not be able to be a stable nation. Ethics are part of the foundation for stability, therefore without ethics there cannot be stability.
Even if a nation does cannot enjoy the advantages of stability, a poor, unified nation has more chances of recovering as a group than a recently defeated corrupt nation. It is the people who make the nation, and without common ethics among the people and the government there cannot be stability, he believes that only through force and power can people respect a government, and that through the power of destruction and oppression can there be stability.
Machiavelli would not necessarily agree with me,

By: Zach W

Zach W — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 05:19:54 +0000

Hmm…I will definately stand by Elizabeth and Kristen on this one. Ethics and stabillity go hand in hand and one cannot go without the other in a large nation. Ultimately, stability is the prime goal for an empire or nation, not to achieve an outstanding code of ethics. However, a country needs a good set of ethics to go by, because without them, the beliefs of the people of a country are so different that there is absolutely no possible way for an economy to stabalize. For example, before the progressive era in Capitalist America, the country failed a wretched attempt at finding stabillization in the economy without a moral set of ethics. Big businesses such as banks, oil companites, and steel companies had a firm grip over the economy, yet could not stabillize it, because of their terrible ethics. They did not care for the consumer nor the employee and therefore only a few, very wealthy Americans were content, indicating that the country was certainly not stable. Drastic changes were brought onto this system during the progressive era up until the New Deal and beyond, bringing government regulation and good morals to stabillize the economy. Machiavelli juxtaposes the ethics and stability in a country and seems to believe that the two are in a dominoe line, where as soon as good ethics fall into place, stability will follow. Machiavelli states that “thus you find enemies in all those whom you have injured by occupying that dominion (35).” Enemies are often signs that portray stability in a nation. Machiavelli emphasizes here that people must be able to get along if they want to maintain a stable relationship. If you treat others in ways that you would not want to be treated yourself, then stability can falter and the dominoes fall out of place. Again, stability is the main goal of a nation, but it must reach stability by means that include a moral set of ethics that are imposed on the people of that nation.

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 03:16:33 +0000

Ok Dan S., I am going to have to disagree with you and agree with Damian, Elizabeth, Liana and Kristen on this one. I will agree with everyone that Ethics and Stability are two very important aspects of a nation. They are both essential for the survival of a nation, however, I think that in order for there to be a nation, ethics are needed in order for stability to exist. So therefore ethics are more important than stability for a nation. Like what Damian said about Totalitarian regimes only benefiting those who are in power, a nation with flawed morals and ethics can be strong for a while yet are not stable and do not last. Another comparison to this is in many businesses today. Many businesses like Bear Stearns who used to be very stable and strong have failed due to a lack of ethics and morality within their businesses. With respect to Machiavelli, he discusses ethics and stability in The Prince and has seemed to side with the aspect of Stability over Ethics. In many places throughout the third chapter “Of Mixed Monarchies” he continually refers to war, battle, security and durability and seems to put off ethics. “But when dominions are acquired in a province differing in language, laws and customs, the difficulties to be overcome are great, and it requires good fortune as well as great industry to retain them; one of the best and most certain means of doing so would be for the new ruler to take up his residence there. This would render possession more secure and durable, and it is what the Turk has done in Greece” (36-37). He talks about overcoming difficulties of taking over a province and making it more stable under the new ruler by making his residence there. Then he goes on to talk about planting colonies in key places that won’t cost much to the Prince but will hurt those who are displaced by these new colonies all for better rule over his newly acquired nation. So though I believe that ethics are more important to a nation, Machiavelli believes that stability is more important.

By: Noah

Noah — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 03:06:02 +0000

After reading the responses of my peers, I find myself agreeing with Dan and Mary. One key point that the class has apparently come to a consensus on is that an ethical government is a democratic one that represents the will of the majority and does not encroach on the inalienable rights of its inhabitants. However, as I learned in World Themes, most revolutions can be divided into five stages, one of which is a democratic rule of moderates. This government is often very ethical, but will almost always be overthrown because it lacks influence. The radical and totalitarian governments that are set up after the democratic one is dismantled tend to last much longer, because they are more stable and capable of suppressing revolution. The United States government is, on paper, a perfect example of an ethical ruling body. It’s system of representative democracy and division of government ensure that its citizens are not deprived of their basic rights. However, the only reason that it was not dismantled by the civil war is that it has the power to coerce its citizens into military service at any given time. Machiavelli seems to agree with my views on the importance of stability, and aknowledgles that the existance of an ethical republic is not enough to ensure that it will be stable, “but in republics there is greater life, greater hatred, and more desire for vengeance; they do not and cannot cast aside the memory of their ancient liberty, so that the surest way is either to lay them waste or reside in them,” (47). This quote was used by one of my classmates, whose interpretation of it I agree with. Machiavelli is pointing out that nations in which the government gives its people great amounts of liberty are bound to be full of hatred and discontent, because the unfiltered ability to speak one’s mind inevitably creates disagreement. Thus, force must be exerted in the form of military action or autocatic occupation in order for the nation to be stable enough to exist.

By: Dan D

Dan D — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 02:16:07 +0000

I agree with respect to stability being a more important asset to a nation rather than ethics. Although ethics seem to initiate a sense of morality to the people, stability is a much more significant attribute of a nation as it ensures security. With security in mind, nations are safe, out of the way of harm. This leads the people into a positive state of mind as they are secured by the stability of their nation. Nations do not need to prioritize with ideas on ethics as they simply alleviate the social worries at hand, compared to stability which will ensure both social, political, and military protection. A stable nation is a happy nation. : )
Machiavelli seems to take a hold of the idea that stability is a more central asset to a nation rather than the ethics involved in creating a powerful state. He touches on the idea that reducing the feel of “imposing” a nation will help to give faith to the people, but discusses more evidently the idea that “a city used to liberty can be more easily held by means of its citizens than in any other way, if you wish to preserve it.” Thus keeping the citizens happy by stabilizing the nation, and ensuring their well-rounded security, will lead to a successful rule.

By: ELLIOT

ELLIOT — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 01:15:42 +0000

In my opinion ethics are much more important in a nation than stability. A quote that summarizes my opinion well is this, said by Benjamin Franklin, “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” There are several reasons for this. First, just to clear it up, I am interpreting valuing ethics over stability as meaning, preferring a government that looks out for the rights of the people but will not curtail the people’s rights or use oppressive means to achieve stability. And I’m assuming that valuing stability over ethics means being willing to sacrifice your freedoms or rights occasionally (or deprive others of them) in order to achieve stability. Now it seems pointless to value stability over ethics, because as Ben Franklin said, in the end those who value stability over ethics/freedom will receive neither. This is because when people are sacrifice their freedoms or rights in order to for the government to be able to protect them, they are giving up that which they seek to preserve, which is very ironic. As the government has more power to oppress than any individual or group (in almost all cases) then it is of utmost importance that they are held to the highest standards of ethics and never given a chance to abuse their power as we have seen throughout history what happens when governments are vested with too much power to “insure stability” (the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution comes to mind).

Another interesting point I did not immediately think of was brought up by Liana and I agree with her very strongly. To summarize, she argued another reason why valuing stability over ethics in government is self-defeating, as a populace that views their government as abusive and unethical does not form a stable society content with their government.

Now Machiavelli would clearly value stability over ethics in a government, in fact, the adjective Machiavellian suggests someone/something that places stability or power over ethics and honesty. Machiavelli writes that “It is not, therefore, necessary for a prince to have all the above-named qualities, but it is very necessary to seem to have them.” (page 93) Basically, a prince [government] should only be concerned with getting and holding power and should not care one bit for ethics, except when they affect their ability to hold power. So Machiavelli states that ethics are only really useful to a government when it comes to convincing the people that they have them so as to pacify the populace. But then again, this position makes sense considering Machiavelli’s point of view. He is writing as an advisor to a ruler, and his end goal is very different from the average person as he aims to give advice that will lead rulers to gather and maintain power without a single care for the wellbeing of the populace. Surely my own opinion is also influenced by my point of view because I have never lived in a society/nation where my own life is threatened; therefore national stability is not a realistic or tangible issue in my own life.

By: Kali

Kali — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 01:20:08 +0000

I believe that ethics are definately more important than stability because although you must have both to govern a nation, you must be a moral, ethical leader to keep your people under control and your nation running smoothly. If you have a government based on proper ethics, then stability will come. Both Dan and Damian have discussed stability versus ethics throughout history. True, scare tatics and oppression have been used to keep a government under control while changing hands, as we see after the Spanish Civil War during the reign of Fransisco Franco and a totalitarian government. And although that type of rule will keep a nation stable for some time, it will never last, and sooner or later the peope or a foreign nation will rise up and take over. However I think Machiavelli would disagree with me. In the earlier chapters of “The Prince,” Machiavelli mentions more than once that it is good for a people to fear their ruler because it is the only way to keep them in check. However he also says that a prince must have the people’s will in mind becuase the people’s good will ensures the stability of the nation. I think in the end the people will prevail over the government if it is an unjust and unethical government. If it comes to a rebellion of the people or a foreign power coming in, the country will be more unstable than if it had ruled with good ethics in the first place. All in all, if a nation has proper ethics, than stability will follow, if not soon after, eventually.