Reaction to Machiavelli’s “The Prince”

Andrea
14 September 2007
19:140

Upon completion of “The Prince,” I was immediately struck by how little faith Machiavelli held in the human race. He himself called men “ungrateful, voluble, dissemblers, anxious to avoid danger and covetous of gain (p. 83).” Later in the same paragraph he encourages Princes to kill a subject’s family member rather than steal since “men forget more easily the death of their father than the loss of their patrimony.” This makes humans seem so despicable that it makes one wonder why it would be desirable in any way to rule them.
However, I changed my mind after reading the excerpt for a second time. It seems to me that he cannot believe that the human race is as stupid and base as he makes it out to be. He obviously wants his Prince to care about his public image – the ruler should be feared but not hated, miserly with his own goods yet generous with the spoils of battle, et cetera. Machiavelli himself says the Prince must “seem to be all mercy, faith, integrity, humanity and religion (p. 85).” There is no reason for a ruler to make such an effort to appear so good if his subjects are pitiful, stupid and horrible.
So if he does indeed value the opinions of the people, why such a tough demeanor? Machiavelli lived in Italy during a time of great political turmoil. Kings were ousted and reinstated quite frequently, and he himself was exiled for a period. Perhaps he felt that the only way for a ruler to survive in such a cutthroat political environment was to be cutthroat himself. As they say, when in Rome….

Reaction to J. Bentham’s “An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation”
Andrea – 9/7/7 – 19:140


This article was, on the whole, a very enjoyable and interesting read. I have never before had the chance to read a theory of Utilitarianism by anyone other than John S. Mill, and I learned a lot hearing the same theory from a different voice. It seems that Bentham had many critics, or at least anticipated as much. Every point is defended in intricate detail – he even devotes a section to a process by which to convert those who disagree with Utilitarianism.
On the whole, I tended to agree with Bentham’s theories. I also believe that it is human nature to avoid pain and seek pleasure. However, some of his ideas were unclear or seemed counterintuitive and in my opinion need to be explained more thoroughly, or else reconsidered. For example, Bentham’s section on measuring pleasure and pain. He spends much time discussing the qualitative aspects of ways in which one could measure each sensation (intensity, duration, et cetera) and makes a logical argument for each. My confusion came when he began to attempt to quantify the “goodness” and “badness” of a tendency. How exactly is one to assign and sum the value of every feeling or action? How is one to determine whether, for example, a stubbed toe is a three on the badness scale or a two? Which is worse, stubbing ones toe or jamming ones finger? And does the satisfaction of building a birdhouse outweigh two splinters and a smashed thumb?
I would have liked to hear Bentham’s application of Utilitarianism to everyday life (especially how he related it to his own). Perhaps the reading was too short to cover all counter situations that might arise, but one example would have gone a long way toward convincing me to subscribe to Utilitarianism.