"The General Rule" by Machiavelli

Thus the new take may "be thoroughly incorporated with the ancient put in" (5). In this case, the observation that people of like culture and delivery were ache attached to France is linked to the conclusion that a French-speaking, homicidal conqueror will have an easy time of ruling, non because of his murderousness, but because of the people's cultural similarities with him. Machiavelli gives a wrong reason for the people's forbearance and does not adequately account for why ruling could be easy.

Machiavelli often erroneously infers causation in a arrange of historical way outs. In discussing the descend of France, Machiavelli cites Louis XII's conquest of a reduce of Italian city-states, followed by giving assistance to the papal states, which gave the church power, then by sharing power in Naples with the great power of Spain. In due course, Louis mazed his conquests. Machiavelli concludes as "the general rule, which never or rarely fails, that the prince who causes another to become powerful thereby works his own ruin" (13-14). In other run-in every time Louis did other rulers a favor, he lost power; the frequency of such occurrences therefore shows that doing political favors causes ruin. This is an illustration of the logical fallacy known as post hoc, propter hoc, or the idea that if event B (the fall of France) happened after event A (helping the Pope), then event A caused event B. notwithstanding that chain of cause and effect cannot

Machiavelli engages in nonargumentative rhetoric, which is meant to persuade someone to do something but which is not designed to prove anything. This can be seen in passages of commonsense advice about how a prince can protect his office:

termination: Since Machiavelli is specifically using his cerebration of history to explain his view of current politics, his logical failures cannot be discounted.

Further, suspicion of Machiavelli's complex motives and vague agendas does not support the idea that his prudent statecraft advice has oneness or that he approves of murderous conquest as long as it shores up power. Nor is it clear whether Machiavelli intends more to instruct Lorenzo in politics or regain a civil utility job.

The fact that The Prince is a political classic suggests that, despite reason of his failings, Machiavelli can be considered reliable. The nonargumentative rhetoric of advice to the prince can be render as a desire for prudent statecraft and rule. To displace a prince not to rob and rape his people is goodly and moral advice and more important than the presence of logical fallacies in the text.

Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince. Trans. Christian E. Detmold. New York: Washington Square Press, 1966.

be proved. some other fallacy of this line of argument is that it confuses who was to blame for the decline of France with how the decline happened--confuses responsibility with cause.

However, the presentation of the text goes to questions of Machiavelli's persona, motive, and tone. The persona of Machiavelli is unreliable to the consummation The Prince has a hidden agenda. The role Machiavelli assumes is that of the political ex
Ordercustompaper.com is a professional essay writing service at which you can buy essays on any topics and disciplines! All custom essays are written by professional writers!