Gandhi vs Machiavelli - Morality Essay Example
In one of the masterpiece book about politics The Prince, Machiavelli defined the notion of politics as war and politics form an organic whole while war is a political instrument, politics itself is warlike activity - Gandhi vs Machiavelli introduction. In this perspective, violence seen as an inevitable factor in politics. focus the unity of ends and means. This argument claims that the means creates the kind of end that ultimately is achieved; violence and unjust action as means will simply reinforce those kinds of behavior in whatever end is achieved.
The idea of excusable means for public ends is This is an important point because without it the idea of excusable means for public ends is seriously weakened: means then could be looked upon as being good in themselves so that no value could effectively be placed upon the end to which they aim. Essentially, the beast of violence would be combined with the reasonable law-making man (though he asserts this in a weaker way in regard to the natural tendency of men to want to acquire).
essay sample on "Gandhi vs Machiavelli"? We will write a cheap essay sample on "Gandhi vs Machiavelli" specifically for you for only $12.90/page
More Morality Essay Topics.
The use of violence to maintain a state does not differ substantially from the use of violence to hold newly acquired states. The important principle is that it is essential to induce a degree of fear from the people. Acts and appearances which maintain a healthy degree of fear and respect will be the most effective in maintaining the state and its ruler’s position. To sum, he identifies with the ideal ruler image with a faker who gives a reliable impression constantly. Well used cruelty would be a good moral decision in that it enforces the power of Prince.
At this point, it is not hard to say that Machiavelli’s general view of violence in politics is closely related to his point of view on the human nature. A view that human nature represents our primitive side which arises in us because of the biological need of survival from the life, it constantly triggers the fear of death. During this survival, “The best way of defense is to attack”. In animal kingdom, in the human world, there is tremendous competition. So people simply go on attacking, nor bothering whom they are attacking or whether he was really going to attack them.
But there is no way to find out – it is better not to take a chance. And when you attack somebody, slowly your heart becomes harder and harder because of that, you start enjoying attacking. It is like the power competition and the food competition in nature. Machiavelli was a man who raised with “humanism” ideas and after experiencing a full of bogus affair througout dukes, popes. Human-being is dominated by his passions. He is acquisitive, shortsighted and imitative. His desires are unlimited and bear little relation to his abilities.
This selfishness leads to conflict between those who desire to dominate and those who desire to be free from domination. Domination is itself the most powerful of emotional desires. ” “End justify the means” So violence derives from our nature, no matter how much all of us want to live in a peaceful world. Gandhi accepted violence but aimed his philosophy at the reduction of physical violence in politics. The ends and the means are inextricably the same thing. Gandhi seperates the ends and the means.
If the means acre negative, the ends can’t be anything, but negative as well, so it it impossible to say that one can justify another. If a country uses brute force, as the English did, they will only reap an outcome of brute force and violence which is ultimately negative and unstable. Put “atonomy” as moral and spiritual freedom. This is emancipation from the slavery of passions which leads towards self-purification. For Gandhi the oneness of humanity (and the self) was the truth, and violence and denial of this caused separation from that truth, and human suffering.
Gandhi would not be surprised that the century of realism was also the century of mass killing and violence: our attitudes on human nature and power are reflected in our political outcomes. Gandhi believes in this, because for him man is not only a biological nature, but also a moral nature. Individuals not only deserve freedom, but they have the duty to make themselves free by freeing themselves from domination and violence. To do this one has to “govern oneself” and “to be honest to oneself”.
In this sense, in Gandhi’s philosophy, “freedom from restraints” becomes “freedom through restraints”. To better understand the relationship between power, violence, morality and an individual model that . exactly fits with Machiavelli proposed the liberation of man from all moral values. Yet, most leaders just supposed to influence on Gandhi’s political steps. just supposed to Gandhian But like 99. 999… % of humanity, I believe that sometimes violence is justified, particularly in defense against the violence of others.
I believe that there are two basic programmatic weaknesses in pacifism: nonviolence does not always work and some conflicts are irreconcilable. -Because Machiavelli was not a moral philosopher there is some danger in this sort of analysis. After all, he was an eminently practical political man. But to deny an ethic to his politics would be foolish. The point is not that there is a moral reason to use or not use violence but that, in a sense, the moral and practical should be considered together in judging an action. So long as a ruler seeks to maintain and acquire with proper ends (and success) his