EUROQUESTIONS
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Harvard University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
238
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Apr 3, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
2
Uploaded by MajorPower569
1. Machiavelli offers the cities of Germany as examples of truly secure states. What is it that makes the German cities secure?
Machiavelli offers the cities of Germany as examples of truly secure states due to their strong fortifications, sufficient artillery, preparedness with supplies, and maintenance of the lower classes through employment and industry, making them resilient to attacks and siege.
2. What is the difference between mercenary soldiers and auxiliary soldiers? Does Machiavelli like either kind?
The difference between mercenary soldiers and auxiliary soldiers lies in their origin and allegiance. Mercenary soldiers fight for pay and lack loyalty, discipline, and reliability, while auxiliary soldiers are forces borrowed from a more powerful neighbor, posing the risk of becoming the ruler's captor. Machiavelli disapproves of both kinds.
3. Why does Machiavelli believe mercenaries cannot be trusted? What does he mean when he says that auxiliaries pose the opposite danger?
Machiavelli believes mercenaries cannot be trusted because they lack motivation beyond their wage, making them unreliable in critical situations. Auxiliaries, on the other hand, are dangerous due to their own motivation and courage, potentially leading to the prince's subjugation.
4. Does Machiavelli seem to have a very high opinion of human nature? Can you characterize his opinion of people in your own words?
Machiavelli has a pessimistic view of human nature, describing people as ungrateful, self-interested, and easily swayed, showing how loyalty and support can waver when self-interest is at stake.
5. Why does Machiavelli believe that it is better for a prince to be feared than loved?
According to Machiavelli, a prince should be feared rather than loved because fear can be maintained by the prospect of punishment and is less likely to be exploited by people's shifting desires than love, which is brittle and readily shattered for one's own benefit.
6. Would Machiavelli's perfect prince be loved by his people? What does his discussion of fortresses (that is, specially fortified areas within cities) say about a prince's need to be loved by the people?
Machiavelli argues that the protection of the prince is better founded in the love of the people, as even fortified territories within cities cannot safeguard a ruler if the people loathe him and foreigners’ side with the discontent. The ideal monarch, according to Machiavelli, would be both feared and loved.
Interpreting Historical Sources
7. In a nutshell, Machiavelli seems to say that to be secure a state needs good arms and good laws. Does this seem to be a good summary of his argument? Why or why not?
Yes, the assessment that a state needs powerful weapons and solid laws is accurate. Machiavelli contends that preserving security and stability requires a potent military and strong government.
8. Do you think that Machiavelli has identified everything that it takes to make a state secure? Would a state that followed Machiavelli's advice be secure, or simply be more secure than if it did not follow his advice? Why?
While crucial for security, Machiavelli's counsel does not cover other facets of state stability, such as economic success, diplomacy, and social cohesiveness. While heeding his counsel might increase security, it cannot necessarily guarantee general stability, and each state's unique circumstances must be
taken into consideration.
9. Machiavelli obviously believes that a prince must sometimes be cruel in order to be secure. But he goes further. He says that by seeming to be cruel a prince may sometimes actually do what is best for the
majority of the people. Do you agree? Do you think that a prince is ever justified in sacrificing the rights of one or few people in the long term interest of the many?
Machiavelli suggests that a prince's perceived cruelty might serve the long-term interest of maintaining order and reducing bloodshed, even if it means sacrificing a few individuals. The ethical dilemma arises as to whether sacrificing individual rights for the greater good is ever justified, and opinions on this vary based on moral and philosophical perspectives.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help