Renaissance Lit – Discussion Question #1 – The Prince
March 23, 2009 by mswilson
Which is more important for a nation – stability or ethics? Why? In answering this questions, please give me what you think and what Machiavelli would say.
Create a free edublog to get your own comment avatar (and more!)
Stability is the key for the nation’s success. Before responding to this question I though morals and ethics were necessary. However, throughout the reading, it is evident that Machiavelli clearly states how stability is much more important. In chapter five, he talks about the three ways of Governing land. The first way is to dominate. Destroy and seize all the rules and regulations. This way is very stable and allows no riots. The second way is to conquer and govern. The final way is to keep the old way and place taxes, working friendly with the new land. From this chapter, the key point that is stressed is that stability is the key to success. The book I feel Machiavelli is trying to guide us in absolute domination and how to keep power. Killing others and rising to the top are some of the chapter’s conceptions. Being evil and cruel are necessaries for the prince. As a result, for a nation to be successful it must first become stable and then the other sweets come along with it.
I think for a nation it is important to have a blance of both. However, in each sociey one always overules the other. But if I had to choose one it would have to be stability, because I think stability is what makes a country, sociey, ect. I think Machiavelli would agree with me that stability is important because in the book he explains how their is always a ruler. And the ruler always has to have stability and when the ruler or the one in charge loses that stability that is when the whole society or country can go down.
Stability is more important than ethics for a nation. The prince only has to keep his past tradition intact, while adapting to the current events. Machiavelli would say that the natural disposition of subjects in a hereditary state is to love the ruling family, unless the prince commits some horrible crime against his people. Stability is more important because if a prince takes over he can find himself in a tough situation with the people. The prince needs to do his best to gain the support of the people. Machiavelli would say it is much easier to maintain stability over a new principality if the people share the same language and customs as the prince’s own country. The prince has to do only two things. He has to destroy the family of the former prince, and maintain the principality’s laws and taxes. People will live quietly and peacefully as long as their old ways of life aren’t being undisturbed.
I personally believe that in upholding a nation, there needs to be an even balance of ethics and stability, even if that stability means resorting to some less than ethical practices, but for the sake of conversation, I believe that if required to lean one way or another, I would say that ethics are more important for a nation than stability (assumedly attained through a lack of ethics). It is essential that a nation be based around, or less etremely, follows a set of ethics, as those ethics will provide all stability needed in the end, and for a naiton to survive, what is needed is a strong support. If a nation relies solely on stability and lacs the necessary and proper ethics, then it will be an enourmous failure. At first, there will be a period of great success, and the nation will seem indestructible, but soon after, the nation will with one fell swoop, deteriorate from a lack of structure (being ethics). Such an example is Bernie Madoff, who, cast aside ethics in the quest for greatness, but what he could not see until it was too late was that the world he had created was crumbling around him, because the real, ethical world caught up to him. I believe that Machialvelli would say that a nation needs stability more than ethics, because most of Machiavelli’s preachings in “The Prince” lean towards a more successful, and less ethical society. If the choice existed, I’d actually say that he would believe that, just as i do, a nation in between stability and ethics would be more successful in the long run.
I believe that ethics are more important for a nation. A nation responds well if the people are being treated fairly, and the nation will take a liking to who is governing them because they are not being oppressed. Also, I believe that the ruler must show in interest in his nation so the people feel that he cares about them and is familiar with the situations going on in that nation. Machiavelli would also agree that ethics are more important for a nation. Machiavelli states that a way for a ruler not to lose his new nations and have them be more secure would be ” for the new ruler to take up his residence there” (37). Machiavelli believes that the people of a nation repect and grow to love their ruler if he is able to help them sooner if a bad situation were to arise. If a nation’s ruler does not live in the nation, he only hears of the bad situations when they get out of hand and, “when they get beyond remedy” (37). Machiavelli feels that a nation must be treated fairly and nicely by the ruler and the nation must feel that their ruler cares and takes an interest in them, and if the ruler can quickly help solve a bad situation. I feel that if ethics were seen as more important than there would be less of a need of stability. If the ruler has good morals and values and cares about the way his nation is treated, that is, in a sense, a form of stability. When there is a good relationship between the ruler and the nation, stability occurs sooner and at a faster pace if the nation were to be unstable. Machiavelli has influenced me to think that ethics are more important because having a good relationship creates a foundation/base for natural stability to occur.
(
I, personally, would say that neither are more important than the other… ethics thrives in stability and countries that are more ethical tend to be more stable. If a nation does not treat its citizen’s ethically (perhaps by torturing them, killing them, or even simply disregarding the views of the majority of them), and does not have a super-effective way of indoctrinating/silencing them (i.e. North Korea), the citizenry tend to grow restless and angry, and would be more inclined to overthrow that states power structure (i.e. French and Russian Revolutions). A state that acts ethically is almost always stable (as a society’s shared set of ethics, such as Americanism in the USA, are custom made to promote stability in that society). The citizenry almost always respond favorably to ethical governance.
Machiavelli would disagree with me, I suspect. He says himself that he only deals with “principalities” (autocracies) in “The Prince,” a system of government that I consider inherently unethical. He is famous for saying, on the subject of whether it is better for a ruler to be feared or loved:
“The answer is of course, that it would be best to be both loved and feared. But since the two rarely come together, anyone compelled to choose will find greater security in being feared than in being loved.”
Fear can bring stability (again, as in North Korea, which is very much a principality), something that any prince would want. And its certainly much easier to be feared than loved (you can screw up big time, as Kim Jong Il perennially does, and still be feared).
So, how do you get your subjects to fear you? Be unethical. Torture them, kill them, eliminate dissent, act contrary to their interests, be vindictive. Unethical? Yes. Stable? Possibly.
If you act ethically, stability will come. If you act unethically, stability will often go.
Stability is the very most important for a nation. With Stability comes Ethics. In order to have a stable nation, you need to have the correct motives on whats right and wrong. All nations depend on its people to support their ruler but when a another prince takes over the domain, he cannot maintain the support of those people if he cannot fulfill all their other expectations. When things get out of hand, he will need the to know the rights and wrongs for a proper punishment so he can still maintain his ruling. I believe that Machiavelli would agree with me stating that stability is most important becuase Stability is key to run a strong nation.
Well, from the coments that i have read i would like to say that i strongly agree with Jill. Stability comes with ethics. When you have ethics, your leader likes your country, is familure with your country, and has faith in your country, everything else such as stability falls into place. I believe that a strong relationship between a country and its leader is extreamly important!!! When the country instills trust in its leader because they feal as if he betters them (and doesnt frighten them) that is when most progress is made in becoming/ being a strong nation. When a leader is harsh and leads through fear, thats when i fell that a country could fall. Its like when you are fighting with your mother. She is yelling at you not letting you speak ect, you dont feel stable. Now, if she listens to you and shows that she truely cares then you feel secure with what is going on around you. I believe that everything should be fair and well thought out. Then a country will gain stablity through ethics.
From the reading i have noticed that Machiavellis views on running a country are very harsh yet real. Many things that he states in this reading are differnt/ have changed over time on how countrys (exspecialy the united states) run. I find it very intersting to see how the veiws of the people grow over time and how things change, or stick throughout the years.
With stability comes less freedom, and i think that Machiavelli would agree on that matter. I would personally agree with Benjamin Franklin’s statement that “Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.” Obviously, freedom is the ethical approach when it comes to government so to answer the question at hand i would say that it is essential to treat citizens fairly and ethically to gain respect. It’s common sense, if you go up to someone with your fists up and ask them to borrow money, they will probably run away, but if you ask nicely and respectfully, you are much more likely to walk away with a pocket full of cash. I am quite sure that Machiavelli and I would disagree on this subject. In Machiavelli’s opinion if you walked up to them with a loaded gun, you would definitely get the money. Machiavelli thinks that obedience is key and fear is a rulers most deadly weapon. He talks about making examples out of people in regards to punishment (which we still do, and is very unethical). This may instill fear and obedience, but fear is not the same as respect and if you really want to win over a nation, you’ll need more than a militia and a castle.
Ethics are indeed a necessary component of any successful nation, but it is not integral in order to achieve stability. It could very easily be argued that an ethical approach to the throne would consequently yield stability, but that is not the case. Ethics are, rather, a small piece of the bigger picture; a King who is too ethical and-ultimately-benevolent is too soft and will be looked at by the outside as such. He may indeed prove to be a very well liked soul, but any monarch that exposes their weaknesses will find they can not maintain a nation as well as one who exudes prowess. I liked Tom’s quoting of Machiavelli in which he notes that fear is a more essential part of any monarchy; such views are reflecting of mine. That is not to say, however, that only good things will come to those who are insidious. An equilibrium must be reached in which a King finds that they are lenient and kind to his subjects but equally, if not more-so, vicious and ruthless. The latter traits do not necessarily need to be taken out on the people, mind you; he could just easily adopt those characteristics at certain times when nearby foes are, perhaps, watching.
Machiavelli is a realist. The Prince is, fundamentally, a work of realism. There is not an inch of idealism in any Machiavelli’s work as Machiavellianism completely disavows such ideologies. Therefore, Machiavelli would be firmly rooted in the ideology that stability be the forefront of any King’s agenda, with ethical reasoning somewhere behind. Once again, that is not to say that a ruler who imposes an iron fist upon his people will be considered the greatest man to ever live. Stability does not mean an utter disregard of the people. I feel that Machiavelli understands this, as he notes that Kings must promote their good qualities in order to appease the people; but he would firmly agree with me in that if one were required to become bitter and ruthless in order to maintain stability, then by all means one should do so.
I believe that in a nation, ethics is more important than stability Ethics is more important because everything should be fair, people should be treated like people and not animals, and the government should make laws that make everyone equal. Having an ethical country will lead to a stable one. Stability comes from ethics. Humans deserve the right to be treated just like everyone else and not singled out or have a certain group of people treated differently from others. You can not have cruel punishments like torture because that will send your people in ruin. The government and the people need to work together to make a strong country and that can only happen when everything is ethical. (my opinion before reading Machiavelli…did not want to be influenced by what he says)
Machiavelli- Machiavelli believes that stability is more important than ethics. He talks about when a prince successfully ends an attempt at a revolution its great but he also must punish his people harshly. Machiavelli believes that harshness is what is need to keep a nation stable and in check.
With ethics comes stability; it is not one or the other. However Machiavelli does not seem to think so. He explains that ethics are not necessary in a society with stability. He says that stability is usually accomplished through an iron fisted rule. I believe that there are many examples of societies with an ethical base that are stable, such as the many democracies of the world. The United States is one of them; the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are a set of written ethics that have kept this country stable for over two centuries. On the other end of the spectrum is Mexico. This country has been fraught with corruption and this has allowed the drug cartels to potentially destabilize the country. Looking at the many countries around the world there is a clear correlation between ethics and stability.
I believe that stability is more important for a nation. Ethics is important too, but stability might be able to help out in the ethics area. People naturally are more comfortable with what they know. So in a monarchy, most likely, unless one guy screws up royally, the people will want to stay under that rule, as long as the country is doing well. They will feel more comfortable in this rule with the same laws and design of the country that has been intact for however long. If a new government or monarchy comes in then they might not be so comfortable with it. If they don’t like the new monarchy, then maybe the might act up, rebel. In chapter three, Machiavelli tells us about how France had gained control of Milan twice. He talks about how France did that, but that must have meant that at that time period Milan had been very unstable-if I had been living in Milan at that time I wouldn’t of liked it very much-but if the people had liked that then France probably would have been able to keep Milan at least the second time, but obviously France didn’t. In a nation stability is definitely more important.
I feel that Machiavelli would say that stability is more important for a nation. I say this because, in the text he frequently makes statements such as this; “…but having once conquered him, and beaten him in battle so that he can no longer raise armies, nothing else is to be feared except the family of the prince, and if this be extinguished, there is no longer any one to be feared, others having no credit with the people; and as the victor before the victory could take place no hope in them, so he need not fear them afterwards.” He considers human life, particularly those conquered, expendable. Now correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t it usually considered morally unethical to kill people? If ethics was seen as a necessity to him, I feel he would not have suggested killing innocent people so easily.
Both stability and ethics are important to a state. When everything is in place, the people will feel more comfortable and will develop their own ethics because they’re not too busy trying to save themselves from being decapitated. Ethics in turn lead to stability as people have a better idea of what to do, though you don’t need a specific ethics code. People develop it as a culmination of their experiences, so having a code put into law would restrict freedom.
If leaders act unethically, killing people willy-nilly, in general doing whatever the hell they want, it destabilizes the country because let’s face it; no one wants to live with a ruler that wants to stab you. When you start off unstable, you’re going to having constantly shifting ethics as people go around being nuts and such. You need a little bit of both to get a good recipe for a state.
Machiavelli, however, would be more of a “screw you, ethics”-man. I’ll just reference Tom’s quote, “Anyone compelled to choose will find greater security in being feared than in being loved.” Yay Machiavelli. He’s the kind that would help the government in any way just so that it can keep its legitimacy. “Need a village deported? Done! It’s not like there’s anyone with family or loved ones there!” He has got dirty methods, but he knows what he’s talking about at least.
Take your pick. You need them both, so roll with it.
I agree with Jackie that it is necessary to have a balance of both stability and ethics. Machiavelli believes that stability is more important, and that a Prince would find his own security through being feared by his people.
However, I strongly disagree that it is more important to gain stability through fear than love. If I were a Prince, I would not feel secure at all knowing that people out there fear me. They’d probably fear me because of something unethical I have done to them. History has shown us that after it gets to a certain point, the people can’t take any more of the cruelty that a ruler uses to maintain the stability of his nation. After this certain point, people usually begin to protest and stand up for their their rights, demanding better treatment. This is definitely not a good thing for the Prince!
If the Prince is ethical and cares about the people, then there would be no reason for them to become upset/ fearful of him, and they will be happy with their lives and their Prince.
A nation remaining stable and a nation becoming prosperous are two completely different things. If a country is stable it is safe, out of harms way, and is doing what is necessary. When a nation is prosperous it is going up and beyond and is doing more than is necessary. This being said Machiavelli can only accept his nation being prosperous. For him being stable and being prosperous come hand in hand.
From my point of view i feel that in order for a nation to remain stable a certain code of ethics must be put into place. When asked about Machiavelli’s point of view i immidiately thought of this quote. “People are by nature changeable. It is easy to persuade them about some paricular matter, but it is hard to hold them to that persuasion. Hence it is necessary to provide that when they no longer believe, they can be forced to believe.” This quote says it all, he feels that if anyone gets in his way when he is trying to run his nation he will make them do what he wants. No questions asked. For Machiavelli ethics don’t apply because he feels that no matter what the strength of his nation will always come first.
Both stability and ethics are crucial in creating a prosperous nation. In my opinion, it is in a nation’s best interest to place ethics before stability. Ethics implies that the government is acting in the best interests of its people and working to provide the people with a decent standard of living. Therefore, if the ruling power acts ethically, then it is more likely that the people of the nation will be content to follow this ruler. The people will see their lifestyle improving and understand that the ruler is acting in their favor. As a result, a revolt is less likely to occur and the nation will remain relatively stable. As Tom mentioned earlier, “ethics thrives in stability and countries that are more ethical tend to be more stable.”
Of course, there will always be rivals seeking to gain power regardless of how ethical the current ruler is. Some, Machiavelli included, might say that it is safer to terrorize the people of a nation. This would allow the ruler to retain a tight hold over his people and completely prevent the rise of a rival power. However, if a ruler were to continue his ethical treatment of the people, he would maintain a very good relationship with the majority of the population. This would make it very difficult for the rival power to recruit followers. Even if by some stroke of luck the rival gained sufficient power to challenge the ruler, the ruler could still be prepared for this attack. He would have the love and support of the nation. He might also have prepared a well-trained militia in case of these situations, since a ruler can be both ethical and well-prepared at the same time. In my opinion, acting unethically invites people to challenge the ruler’s power, while acting ethically decreases the likelihood of a revolt.
In Machiavelli’s philosophy, ethics is not a major issue at all. His entire theory is centered around gaining and maintaining power in the most effective way possible. If aiding the people of the nation is the best way to retain one’s position of power, then Machiavelli’s all for it. If terrorizing the people proves more effective, then Machiavelli fully supports it. His philosophy is based on practicality, not ethics. If the method works in one’s favor, use it, regardless of how brutal it may be.
I have to completely agree with Max. It is not ethical to be cruel and possibly kill people, but the most important thing for a nation is stability. A nation will eventually adapt to become more ethical as time goes on. If a nation is more stable it does not have as many wars because it is powerful enough to strike fear into their enemy’s eyes. Machiaveli believes that
Sorry! Please excuse previous comment.
Actual comment: I have to completely agree with Max. It is not ethical to be cruel and possibly kill people, but the most important thing for a nation is stability. A nation will eventually adapt to become more ethical as time goes on. If a nation is more stable it does not have as many wars because it is powerful enough to strike fear into their enemy’s eyes.
Machiavelli believes that a true king is known for his strength in battle, “A prince must have no other objective, no other thought, nor take up any profession but that of war, its methods and its discipline, for that is the only art expected of a ruler,” (Machiavelli). It is not surprising that this was the case back in the day. If a prince was not governing a powerful nation, another neighboring country would just take over. Many people would die and the nation would crumble. It is more important to worry about stability, even though I believe that ethics is very important. For a nation, more people will die in a war that the nation can not win because of a lack of stability than a nation with stability and a lack of ethics. The ability for the nation to thrive and protect itself is more important than ethics. Either way, people will die, but it is better to be a strong and stable nation.
It is much more important for a nation to have stability rather than be ethical because with stability comes ethics. Once the nation has become prominent and strong, ethics soon will come; but stability is key for creating and sustaining government. Of course ethics are also important for a nation, but stability is the glue that holds it all together. Machiavelli would also agree that stability is much more important because he believes that each nation needs a strong military to bestow order and protect the nation’s land. In Machiavelli’s time, if a nation did not have a strong military, they were a weak government and would easily be taken over. For this reason, he would believe that a strong military would be necessary to maintain order and stability, otherwise the nation would ultimately fail. Machiavelli also believed that the leaders of great nations should not be ethical or have morals, but they should appear to have them to their enemies.
I agree with Shota. Stability is the key for the nations succes. In the reading Machiavell states that stability is more important than success. in the book Machiavelli explains how their is always a ruler. in a nation you have to have a strong stable ruler. You can’t have a ruler that is consistantly inconsistant. i agree with Jack on his personal belief that in an upholding nation there needs to be an evan balance of ethics and stability. To up hold a nation you need to be able to do a variety of things and having ethic and stability are import. But choosing one i woulld choose Stabilty becasue have that is having reashuence with who your ruler/leader is.
I definitely agree with Zoë, Tom, Adrian and many others on the idea of stability and ethics as very inverse ways of handling governments. You simply cannot have one without the other, there has to be an equal balance. A stable dictatorship in which, the people are treated horribly, is not stable government. However, in order to have an ethical system, there has to be stability within a government. The lack of ethics may lead to a bit of stability in the beginning, yet as the people begin to recognize the oppression, the whole system is doomed. Achieving ethics however, is something that cannot happen until a government is stable. I believe it all comes down to the whole idea of, which came first, the chicken or the egg? It’s not really a matter of which one is more important because I believe that they both are vital to leading a successful nation, it is which one is achieved first. I’m not saying it’s a race to do one before another, but there has to be one before the other. Personally, I believe stability must be achieved first, yet immediately after that, ethics must become equally important. Both issues must be addressed in the end. People look to government for guidance, and a government must have both stability and ethics in order to be useful to the people. A balance of both ethics and stability is what makes a nation thrive, the issue however, is which one to enforce first.
I think that Machiavelli, however, would think that stability is the most important for a nation. He believes, that despite the importance of ethics, the people must ultimately fear their government. The one way to keep a nation alive, is a very powerful and controlling central government. The ethics are important, yet in order to achieve a permanent stability, he believes that there has to be fear. A person is in power because they deserve to be, and therefore they have the right to enforce their power to achieve stability, not to maintain ethics. By saying that the power lies in one man, he implies that the man in power has the right to put the needs of the survival of the country (stability) over the needs of the people (ethics). The emphasis on the possibility of losing power, and the effect instability has on the people when they do lose a ruler, shows Machiavelli’s opinion on this matter. Machiavelli believes that if there is instability the country will fail, something a lack of ethics wouldn’t cause.
While stability is very important to a country, I believe that there needs to be a balance between ethics and stability, because if the country’s government focuses solely on stability, at all costs, then the country would start to become an oppressive, and the form of government would change from being a republic or monarchy to a totalitarian style government. Without the balance between ethics and stability, then people’s rights will be violated in order to secure the stability of the government. I feel that the government needs to remain stable while at the same time making sure that they don’t start breaking ethical codes to achieve that desire. But I do believe that if it is truly necessary that ethical codes can be broken in order to stabilize the government. Machiavelli would say that stability is most important for a nation to gain or remain stable for it to prosper, then for the nation’s government to follow ethical codes, especially if following the ethical codes means preventing the nation from becoming stable. Like it was said earlier that in chapter 5, Machiavelli goes through and talks about the various ways that one can govern a land, in essence Machiavelli is showing how while each of the three ways that he mentions may not be very ethical ways to govern a nation, that these ways promote, and help ensure the stability of the government. And not only does Machiavelli just talk about the three different ways to govern a nation and how they promote stability but he also uses examples of nations that have followed these methods, and Machiavelli’s best example was the Roman Empire one of history’s most powerful, influential, and longest standing empires. Machiavelli’s reasons for using this example was to demonstrate that when stability is the focus of a nation, that the nation succeeds and prospers. Thus Machiavelli is stating that the ends justify the means.
I have to agree with many of the posts before me in saying that stability comes with ethics. Ethics are what prevent us from bombing another nation out of sheer hatred or ignoring an epidemic that is killing thousands of people. Without ethics, a ruler will not be able to make his country stable because there will always be people who are not at ease with what the ruler is doing. If too many people start to feel this way, they may get rebellious and can progress into anarchy, which no leader wants. Therefore, it is better for a ruler to act ethically in order to maintain stability rather than act unethically and only hope to maintain stability.
Machiavelli, however, would disagree. He believes that, when it comes down to it, stability is much more important than ethics. He says that there are no ethic principles in forces such as bullets or bombs; but, that simply is not true. Every decision made by a leader has an ethics side to it. Bombs and bullets kill people, is that not an ethical dilemma? The fact is, is that you need ethics in order to have stability; one cannot exist without the other.
In order to have a successful government and a well run state, stability is absolutely necessity. However, that being said, if a government is completely unethical, the nation would be reduced to chaos. In order to have a well operating system both stability and ethics are required and should be kept in balance.
Nowadays, ethics in our government have become a major issue and scandals have been appearing in news headlines more and more frequently. Right now the United States’ economy is suffering and part of the reason why is all the unethical business being practiced. Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich recently was charged with essentially trying to sell government positions. Corrupt politicians lead to unstable politics, which eventually leads to unhappy citizens.
I think Machiavelli would agree with this statement and furthermore feel that the unhappy citizens might later lead to a brand new government if the leaders are not careful, “because men change masters willingly, hoping to better themselves; and this belief makes them take arms against their rulers, in which they are deceived…” We still see this evident today, for example after President Bush’s two terms (a government dominated by the republican party) were deemed epic failures, the American public turned to Democrats such as Barack Obama to turn the economy and the country around.
Personally the stability of a nation is far more important than a standard of ethics. It is a prime necessity of the nation and its leaders to ensure the stability within the nation in order for prosperity and growth to be ushered in. If the nation is unstable but also ethical, then the ethics are useless. Any ethical nation that is unstable is hardly even a nation but rather an idea that finds its place in fiction and romantic rhetoric of literary minds. A nation that is stable but also unethical may not be the righteous but will be powerful and the old natural rule of might makes right will come in to place. This view may appear to be of a social Darwinian nature but it is however the most logical choice in the manufacturing and development of a nation.
Machiavelli’s opinion in this subject is very close to my own. He contends that the leaders of the nation have to focus on the stability of the nation without any regard to their own personal ethics. Basically they must follow what ever kind of ethics that appears in good taste to the people. This kind of façade must be put on for the good of the nation and the stability for future growth. It is a necessity in his opinion for the leader to keep the nation in line and appeal to the general sentiment of the people. As long as the leader looks competent and can appease the natural drives of the people then the nation will be stable. Ethical codes do not really play a fundamental role and certainly are not above the level of having a stable nation.
Stability is the base to any nation. A nation thrives off of how stable it is, not the ethics it upholds. Just because a nation is ethical it does not mean it will be able to stay together and provide for its people. It is undoubtedly more important for a nation to be stable primarily because stability ensures order, control, and in turn a satisfied people. With saying that, I do believe that ethics should be of great importance to a nation. Stability and ethics intertwine in that a stable nation is assumedly ethical. Most stable nations hold to ethical ideologies resulting in a combination of the two. By no means can a stable nation be stable without ethics but it doesn’t exactly work both ways. Stability comes with ethics, ethics does not come with stability, thus stability holding prevalence over ethics.
I agree with Collin that Machiavelli wrote his works with the views of a realist. With that, it becomes clear that there would be no way that Machiavelli would perceive ethics as a higher priority. When it comes to realists, they view the world as how it is, not how it could be, and due to that fact, stability shows success better than ethics. When thinking of how Machiavelli would answer this question, a quote from The Picture of Dorian Gray by Oscar Wilde came to mind. ” The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible”. This quote tells me that it is more so what you see, not what could be seen that is important. In a way, it’s a Hedonistic view, because it’s appearance, not the underlying layers. Stability is what you see, ethics would be the underlying layers. With realism it’s point-blank, it’s either there or it’s not, and one really cannot question stability, one can question ethics.
When it really comes down to it, in simplistic terminology, Machiavelli wasn’t really into ethics…at all.
Stability and ethics are both important in order for a nation to succeed. In my opinion good ethics is a key component to establishing stability in a nation. Sure there have been tyrants and rigorous communists that have been successful in ruling a nation in victory. But in a modern society the people wont be as scared of their government as they have in been in the past. I believe in order to achieve true success a country must find a happy medium where the ethics are there but the stability is of far greater importance. It is extremely important that the people of a nation are treated fairly in order to keep the status quo at a positive note. Although Machiavelli makes it clear that stability solely is the most important, his stubbornness fails to see what might result if there is a lack of ethics sewn into a nation’s fabric. Much of Machiavelli’s reasoning is to instill fear upon his people in order to maintain stability, in this sense the people are essentially scared of their government and will not dare step out of line. I agree with Colin in that Machiavelli is a realist and understands completely what has to be done in order to order in a nation, and in the end be a successful ruler.
Stability is more important for a nation. Ethics can always be dealt with, but once you lose stability, you lose control. In the book Machiavelli tells how rulers will always be in power and the ruler always has to have stability. When the ruler loses that stability, the whole nation will crumble. He also talks about ways to govern a nation. The first way he says is to dominate, which creates a stable society. Second he stated was to conquer and govern, which asserts dominance over the people. The last way was to maintain the old ways and place taxes and work hand-in-hand with the people. This also works because it creates a good relationship between the ruler and his people. Ethics are basically the ways one person thinks everyone should act. This is less important than stability, for the main reason that one person cannot say how everyone should act unless they want riots. Stability is the main importance for the success of all nations.
After reading some of “The Prince” it is clear that Machiavelli considers the stability of the government to be MUCH more important to a nation, than the ethics by which this stability is achieved. Machiavelli does not even consider ethics a part of the government that should be considered when talking about politics. It says in the Introduction, “Machiavelli therefore completely divorced the study of politics from the study of ethics. They have nothing in common”(22). So he does not even consider ethics when he thinks about politics because he believes that there is no place for ethics in politics. He believes that the leader does not have to follow the rules of conduct that a regular citizen has to follow. This person is a leader of a nation, and Machiavelli thinks that the rules should be bent in order for this leader to achieve and maintain the stability and safety of his people. The example in the book that is given is the one about war and it says, “When his country is at war,he is no longer bound to respect the sanctity of life and to obey the commandment ‘thou shalt not kill.’ When his country is in danger it becomes his duty to defend it” (26). Therefore, Machiavelli argues that the leader needs to step over some boundaries in morality to properly rule. This is evident and drawn from the currents events that were occurring in Machiavelli’s time. He live in the city-state of Florence, which was torn by political turbulence at the time. Therefore, stability would have been his primary concern in the correct rule of a nation. There is also something mentioned regarding the Italian people that is a testament to the importance of stability to Machiavelli. He thinks that the Italians are descended from Romans and that, if they unite into one state, they could use their geographical advantage (as did the Romans) to progress like the Romans’. Thus, Machiavelli thinks that stability is important to, not only maintain a nation, but to also progress one. Machiavelli thinks that stability is more important than ethics in a nation because ethics must be overlooked in order to accomplish tasks vital to said nation.
In some respects, I actually agree with Machiavelli on this topic, but I think that some of the aspects of his argument are outdated. An equal mixture of both ethics and stability is important to a nation in today’s world. I agree with what was said above about a “stable nation being ethical” and “an ethical nation being stable.” Essentially, if you have one, the other will come and this is how the distribution should be for nations of today. However, I do think that in times of crisis, stability should be considered more. For example, if the United States were to be attacked, the people of the United States would forgive some of the president’s ethical missteps to let him re-stabilize the country. This is different form Machiavelli, because he thought that the ethics of politics should be ignored all together. Now that we have democracies and presidents, more so that monarchs and kingdoms, the people have a say in what the president does. Therefore he must honor ethical codes for reelection or approval ratings. Therefore, today, they are equally as important. Whether the president is ethical to get votes or because that is really his behavior is negligible because he is still acting with ethics. Moreover, if a president did not act in an ethical manner, the people would not be happy and could very well revolt against him. This shows that, in today’s society where the power of the people is great, ethics are just as important to the stability of a nation as stability of a nation is to the ethics. However, I do believe that, at certain times of crisis, the government should be, and usually is, allowed to make a few unethical decisions to keep everything under control.
I strongly agree with Jack and Max’s response to the importance of stability and ethics for a nation. To be stabilized does not only mean that the nation is secured but also means that it has a stable economy. To maintain the laws and the taxes lets the citizens feel comfortable and safe. Ethics is also important for a nation too because every citizens are equal and they must be treated equally.
However, Machiavelli may disagree to my opinion because he believes that the good of the people does not contribute to form a good nation. He believes that the morality and ethics are unnecessary and that the stability of the state is much more important. Machiavelli states, “Whoever obtains possession of such territories and wished to retain them must bear in mind two things: the one, that the blood of their old rulers be extinct; the other, to make no alteration either in their laws or in their taxes” (36). The fact about keeping old ruler’s laws and taxes contributes to the fact that stability is necessary for a nation.
I would agree with what most people say that it is very possible to have stability and ethics both. If everyone followed ethics, then a nation could be stable. The problem is that they don’t. That is why we have laws, because everyone does not follows ethics. Machiavelli definitely felt that Stability was more important than ethics. He thinks that stability is very difficult. When one first takes over a nation, while some people will be pleased, those that supported him and helped him take over, it is very difficult to keep it stable. Stability is the most important thing. In The Prince he mentions not to worry about moving around people, but put in your own people who are loyal to you. That’s not necessary ethical, but he feels it is necessary for stability. On page 37 he states, “Men must either be caressed or annihilated; they will revenge themselves for small injuries, but cannot do so for great ones; injury therefore that we do to a man must be such that we need not fear his vengeance.” I mean, that’s not really ethical, but he is right that if you hurt someone enough so that they cant get back up they will not be able to hurt you. According to him that’s how you get “stability.”
I believe that stability and ethics must exist together in order to have a sucessful government. However if I had to choose one as more imporant it would be stability. The downside of finding stability is that violence can coincide with the search. For Example Machiavelli believes that stability is the key to success and absolute domonation. He thinks that a ruler should do whatever is necessary to maintain power even if it means violence. I think that it would be possible to achieve both stability and ethics through maintaining stability by ethical means and upholding morals. Although this may not ensure stability as much as violent means would, it prevents anger to build in the population and posibly explode into a coup
I believe that ethics are essential to obtain stability in a government. Therefore, they are both equally important, as one does not go without the other. Machiavelli would disagree. He would argue that ethics are unnecessary to obtaining stability and that the increase in stability is much more important than the up-keeping of ethics. This is true because of what he wrote, that “[A Prince] should know how to do evil if that is necessary” (58). Therefore, he obviously believes that stability should be achieved no matter what, and that ethics are not important in the great scheme of things.