"The Prince" is a concise statement of Machiavelli's belief that classical and Christian political theory is unworkable in a world that defines politics as the exercise of power and the struggle for power. It is also implicitly a rejection of a nihilistic counterethic, that only power and brute force matter."Discuss to what extent you agree or disagree with this statement. What evidence can you bring to support your position?
(Dante Germino, Machiavelli to Marx: Modern Western Political Thought, p. 32)
Dante Germino makes two assertions- the first I agree with, and the second I disagree with. Machiavelli did believe that classical and Christian political theory is unworkable in a world that defines politics as the exercize or power and the struggle for power. Throughout his book, you see Machiavelli argue for a view that is opposed to Christian political theory. Machiavelli's desire is to gain and maintain power by mostly whatever means possible, whereas God desires us to rule as He would, and to have charateristics that reflect His glory, such as nobility, generosity, loyalty, justice, mercy, and many more. The absense of God in politics only results in a struggle for power, it's a constant battle of earning and keeping power. Thinking back on previous "Princes" in society, it seems like all the successful rulers where those who obtained a Christian poitical theory.
Secondly, Dante Germino says that Machiavelli rejects the idea that only power and brute force matters. I think in some way this statement is correct, because it seems to be what Machiavelli defends. He supports rulers who only act to maintain power and keep it, but only through a humanistic viewpoint. It seems that men make the rules and the standards, and this is a product of their political views. God should be the ultimate foundation for ethics and without Him nothing can be done. We can not exist, or even maintain and keep power without Him.
it can't work in a world where politics effect power.
No comments:
Post a Comment