Carmen Hollow
Mr. Beurskens
College English
Critique Essay: The Morals of the Prince
May 3, 2011
The Grey Area between Good and Evil: A Critique of
“The Morals of the Prince” by Niccolo Machiavelli
Introduction
We’ve all made a promise that we couldn’t keep and we have all felt bad about breaking those promises. Whether it was a promise to our parents, our children or a co-worker, we don’t feel good about it, but sometimes it can’t be helped. Usually if we couldn’t keep a promise it was for a good reason and not a selfish one. To the person that we made the promise to, we may be viewed as uncaring or unreliable, but to ourselves we know that we had to make a decision that could hurt someone but at the same time our decision could help that same person or persons. Making a promise and not being able to keep it for one reason or another, is one of the few topics that Machiavelli writes of in his essay “The Morals of the Prince”. He also tells why he believes a prince should be feared rather than loved, and why a prince should be stingy and not generous. He wants us to know how a “perfect” prince should act and behave so that the prince will be viewed upon as a great prince.
Summary
Machiavelli writes about how he believes a prince should act and behave to be considered a successful prince, one that is loved and feared, liberal and stingy, one that knows when to keep his word and when to break it. In his essay, Machiavelli writes “a prince who wants to keep his post must learn how not to be good, and use that knowledge, or refrain from using it, as necessity requires” (218). When writing about how it is better to be feared than loved, Machiavelli knows that there must be a balance between the two that the prince must find. He also writes how that same balance must be found between being liberal and stingy and writes how prince must also know when to keep and break his word.
Assessment
Machiavelli knows that there must always be a balance. When writing about whether it is better to be loved or feared, he states “no prince should mind being called cruel for what he does to keep his subjects united and loyal; he may make examples of a very few, but he will be more merciful in reality than those who, in their tenderheartedness, allow disorders to occur, with their attendant murders and lootings” (220-221). Even though his subjects consider him cruel, he keeps them united and loyal by making them fear him and he can keep them under control, unlike the prince who is tenderhearted and has no control over his subjects. When writing about when it is okay to break your word, he states “a prudent prince cannot and should not keep his word when to do so would go against his interest, or when the reasons that made him pledge it no longer apply” (223). This I also agree with. Sometimes when you make a deal with someone you don’t have all the facts and then have to do what you think is best for you and yours.
Response
As I was reading this essay I found myself comparing Machiavelli’s prince to parenting. It gave me a different point of view from today’s world and not from 1513 when he originally wrote it. When he writes about being loved or feared, I found myself chuckling and agreeing.
As a parent to two children, I know what a little fear can do to them. The phrase “wait until your father gets home” will assure that they will behave and do what they are told (even if it is only for a short period of time). Then you compare that to the parents who let their child get away with “murder”. They don’t listen; they run wild and cause havoc. This is what Machiavelli would consider the tenderhearted prince. I also found myself agreeing with when it is ok to break your word. Often times you find yourself making a deal or a promise to someone without knowing all the facts, then when you have all the facts you find it is not in your best interest to keep the deal. As my children get older, I find that this happens often in parenting. You make a deal with them and then have to break it because you either didn’t have all the facts or they didn’t keep their end of the bargain. Sure, you can go sleep over at your friend’s house if you clean your room, only to find that they stuffed everything that was on their floor, into their closet. The only point that I could not agree with is Machiavelli’s stand on liberality and stinginess. Most of what he writes I did agree with, like when he states “a prince who prefers not to rob his subjects, who wants to be able to defend himself, who wants to avoid poverty and contempt, and who doesn’t want to become a plunderer, should not mind in the least if people consider him a miser” (219). But at the end of that part of the essay he then states writes “You can always be a more generous giver when what you give is not yours or your subjects’; Cyrus, Caesar, and Alexander were generous in this way. Spending what belongs to other people does no harm to your reputation, rather it enhances it; only spending your own substance harms you” (220). When writing this, I believe he thinks that what Cyrus, Caesar and Alexander did was ok and there was nothing wrong with it. When I think about what he’s saying, it makes me wonder if it would be ok to steal a piece of candy from another person’s child and give it to my own child? The other persons child is not my “subject” and I am not giving away what is mine or what is my child’s, but I still know it is wrong. You shouldn’t take what isn’t yours then give it away to someone else, that’s called stealing.
Conclusion
After reading this essay I can say that Machiavelli’s “rules” still apply today. Not only would they apply to princes, but to everyday life. You can’t be loved by everyone and sometimes to get something completed, you must be feared by some. You can’t always keep your promises, but if you have to break them, make sure you’re doing it for the right reason. You can’t always be generous, but you shouldn’t be a miser either. Give freely when you can, but make sure to keep what you need for you and yours.