250 words or more The term Machiavellian has come to describe someone who undert

Question

250 words or more

The term Machiavellian has come to describe someone who undertakes evil in an underhanded way. Give examples from the text of places where Machiavelli advocates evil measures. Should you be evil sometimes? Is "evil" even the right word? Machiavelli states that all men who try to be good in all matters come to ruin, alluding to the examples of Socrates and Jesus (each of whom was executed by the political community of which he was a part). Is he right? As you look around the world, does it strike you that morally bad people flourish while good, decent people suffer?  

Explanation / Answer

Question: The term Machiavellian has come to describe someone who undertakes evil in an underhanded way. Give examples from the text of places where Machiavelli advocates evil measures. Should you be evil sometimes? Is "evil" even the right word? Machiavelli states that all men who try to be good in all matters come to ruin, alluding to the examples of Socrates and Jesus (each of whom was executed by the political community of which he was a part). Is he right? As you look around the world, does it strike you that morally bad people flourish while good, decent people suffer?  

Answer: The term Machiavellian is used by social and personality psychologists to imply a type of person who engages in cunning and duplicitous interpersonal behaviours aimed merely at serving personal ends. Such a person can also be characterized by their ability to detach themselves from conventional morality and deceive and manipulate others without any feeling of guilt. Machiavellianism is one of the three traits, the other two being narcissism and psychopathy, which together are called dark triad. Since Machiavellian behave with cold selfishness and treat other human beings as a means to their personal achievement of money, power, social status they also sometime considered as a subclinical psychopathy. Machiavelli has primarily suggested the application of his techniques in statecraft – diplomacy and politics. Some of his suggestions for government include

The word evil is loaded with value judgement a better term would be giving priority to self-interest. Whatever be the means advocated by Machiavelli were basically tactics to achieve one personal political ends. The term evil may be more inclusive of behaviours that may not serve any political ends but still torture or harm other human beings as an end in itself.

His examples of ‘Execution of Socrates and Jesus’ to support his thesis include some of strongest historical evidence therefore we cannot deny Machiavelli’s theory completely irrespective of whether we like it or not. Many political scholars have found his theory to be substantial after his death. The very fact that psychologist have developed the term Machiavellian in their theory of personality indicates that at least some individual do have the traits and behaviours advocated by Machiavelli.

Definitely there is some truth in ideas of Machiavelli but it is partially truth according to me and should recognized as one alternative of behaviours towards achieving our personal ends but not the best alternative. Most of us would not doubt the morality of Jesus and Socrates who were executed by other self-interested people in high places or public. Therefore, I would advocate the use of Machiavellian practices at least for self-defence in case one gets caught up in situation like Socrates.

It does not really strike me because the fact that - As you look around the world, does it strike you that morally bad people flourish while good, decent people suffer? – it is again a matter sampling and criteria used for success and suffering. A short timeframe might indicate flourishing of bad people but I believe if we choose a more holistic view and right criteria of judging success and suffering we might come to an opposite conclusion. For example in case of Socrates the Jury gave him an option to save himself by leaving the state but it was his choice to leave a deeper imprint of his teaching in people’s minds by accepting death, in which he has succeeded since we are discussing about him even today in a favourable light. Though Hitler gained political powers but it is mentioned that he could not sleep well, he never marry because he could not trust other person. If we look more holistically he was actually suffering even while holding supreme power in state.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse 2
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.