Machiavelli was right -
- Thread starter AnOminous
- Start date
This is an unpopular opinion?
Of course, ruling the masses in fear works better than ruling them in love.
You run your government like a factory, you get high-quality, thoughtless pawns that you can use to your advantage.
Of course, ruling the masses in fear works better than ruling them in love.
You run your government like a factory, you get high-quality, thoughtless pawns that you can use to your advantage.
The Prince is satire.
Well his mannerisms, writings, and even his name were quite Machiavellian, how do you know he was right and not just convincing you that he was?
it was?
I know it's clearly written from the perspective of some guy trying to convince a group of people on a claim....but...I mean...HE'S KINDA RIGHT.
Wiining Chris is never worth it, regardless of the fact that once in a blue moon it can lead to entertaining content. The ends do not justify the means.
Easy thread.
Easy thread.
The ends do justify the means in all situations, the end goal is always the most important...and it doesn't matter how you get there to do something.
Cool story, wiin.
The means of you rating me dumb in turn fits the end of me rating you dumb.
Eye for an eye.
So when someone harms you it's okay as long as they have a positive end goal in mind?
This is like something you'd see people type when they try to justify genocide because they ran out of legitimate arguments lmao
No.
I'm talking in terms of self-interest here. If someone harms me, and I harm them back, it's justified because they harmed me first. Eye for an eye. I should've clarified. The ends justify the means in all situations as long as its within your own self-interest. And self-interest doesn't always have to benefit everyone either...
Last edited:
But then you're stuck in an endless cycle, if means constantly justify other means you'll always have someone to take after them and an endless conflict will be created. That's why there's such a thing as a justice system in the first place. If someone killed your, I don't know, uncle or something and you'd kill his murderer in return, someone from his family would come to get you and so on and so forth. There's a reason why eye for an eye doesn't work out unless it's something really subliminal like "Hey, I paid dinner last time so I'd like you to pay for it this time".
We're talking about an ideology here, Machiavelli's ideas were meant to be applied to a large population, not a simple conflict that may happen between you and your buddy.
But it can work. The idea of an eye for an eye lies on the strategic aim that the cycle wouldn't start or on the reliance that someone won't continue the cycle. When a certain ideology is imposed is common that not all people will fall to that ideology. I know you're posing a hypothetical, but that hypothetical is quite unlikely. Usually when someone has an end goal that justifies the means, usually there would be a restraining factor to prevent it from being a cycle.
And even then when it is a cycle, the cycle will eventually stop...but then it could be argued that in your hypothetical that if both families keep killing each other, until there's only one family member left..even if it's not ethical, wouldn't the ends of that scenario be justifiable considering that said family had the likely chance of not sustaining each other through harmony, so in a sadistic way, there was a justifiable reason for killing the rest of the family and being the only one left that would probably not kill another family member, so that means the murdering would stop anyways, or am I just an asshole that is ignoring ethics just to justify Machiavelli's argument in social situation rather than just political and militaristic ones?
It's not about East or West. It's about niggas and bitches, power and money, ridaz and punks. Which side are you on? These niggas is still fuckin' talkin'? You niggas still breathin'? Fuckin' roaches.
Satire might not be the right word, but he was definitely addressing a ruler he wasn't fond of, considering he was exiled by the Medici.
2pac was completely right about a lot of things.
He also faked his death.
Da ends benefit the means.
Traveler
kiwifarms.net
Well his expansionist views are unsustainable and self destructive that's one of the few things I remember from IR theory, if I'm to take you seriously. On another note there was this cool newgrounds philosophy flash game where you pplay as a philosophy teacher who dies, debating with various philosophers from history about morals, and the objective is to find the answer to morality so you can be revived, machiavelli was one of them, pretty good game, it was kinda Pheonix Wright style with you pointing out contradictions in their statements.
