A Perfectly Justified Pragmatic End
...avelli argues that a ruler or the Prince should in fact apply such means in order to be a great ruler for its people. For insatce, how would people react if punishment was lifted from their lives but at the same time chaos arose? Currently, this is precisely the argument some Iraqis who defend Saddam in the Middle East use against the United States. This neither justify or bashes the war in Iraq, but what it does is to prove that order in spite of tyranny is preferred over chaos. But the Prince should watch out for tyranny while at the same time ensure order in his republic. It seems as a contradiction at first but its really not once one explores the psychology of the masses. Killing subjects who threat the order imposed by the ruler will satisfy the masses while harming only a few subjects. Moreover killings will decrease as out laws become afraid of punishment. At the same time, Machiavelli argues that that the loss of a father is less hurtful to a subject than the loss of property. Whether this statement is actually true in a massive scale is unclear. However, a Prince must refrain for the most part from taking away property. But would generosity furthermore help enchance his image? Machiavelli goes into much detail with the issue of generosity vs. miserliness or stinginess. For instance, he argues that a generous ruler will soon be despised as he will lose the love of its people the minute he cannot live up to his generosity. Machiavelli states in The Prince: “…generosity used in such manner as to give you a reputation for it will harm you; because if its employed virtuously and as one should employ it, it will not be recognized and you will not avoid the reproach of its opposite.” The Author therefore argues that the Prince should be generous “with those from who he takes nothing, who are countless, and miserly with all those whom he gives nothing, who are a few”. In this fashion, The Prince brings forth a number of historical references to illustrate its teachings....