Throughout hundreds of years, and even in today’s modern government, many question what behaviors are appropriate when it comes to politics. This oftentimes involves questions regarding promises, the truth, and ethics. Machiavelli’s The Prince, aimed to teach different ranks, particularly significant ranking, powerful men, such as Lorenzo de’ Medici, how to carry themselves in order to secure success and the prosperity of the nation. To many, this book was unethical or immoral. However its purpose, which was for the prince to recognize political reality, was not.Machiavelli himself was a writer of the Renaissance period. The Italian Renaissance greatly focused on the importance of the individual.Therefore humanism was a major intellectual movement during this time. Humanists viewed humans and their experiences as special and disparate from other animals. Machiavelli however, disagreed. According to him, a leader needs to be familiar with three animals: a fox, lion, and wolf. If a person wants to succeed in politics, one would have to act like a beast. This also means that when acting like a beast, a successful ruler cannot, and shouldn’t keep his promises when circumstances demand it.
Law and force are dependent on another. To fight by law is that of man, but to fight by force is that of a beast. A ruler has to behave accordingly to the imposed circumstances. Therefore it is essential for a ruler to be both a man and beast because one is insufficient without the other.Hence one should know how to act ‘beast-like’ in order to be effective in the political wilderness. Machiavelli stresses that one should emulate both the fox and the lion in order to do this, “…A prince is forced to know how to act like a beast, he must learn from the fox and the lion…So it follows that a prudent ruler cannot, and must not, honor his word when it places him at a disadvantage and when the reasons for which he made his promise no longer exist”(57).They might need these instincts to protect themselves from other people with beast-like attributes, such a wolf. Wolves aren’t merely vicious predators, but coordinate together to lay out traps for the unmindful as well. Nobles, filled with ambition due to time and money, will band together like ‘wolves’ if they have to in order to achieve their common interest (what they lack) of undermining the leadership. Foxes are not merely sly, they are both cunning and clever, allowing them to spy out snares set by others. By mimicking the fox, a ruler is able to sidestep traps laid out by his political competitors. While Lions are not merely dangerous, they are fierce, keeping predators at distant. By mimicking the lion, a ruler is able to gain respect through intimidation.
A ruler cannot be effective without embodying both beasts. A fox is unable to defend itself from the wolves, while the lion is unable to detect traps; for this is why a ruler must be tenacious like a lion, to terrify wolves, and sly like a fox, to identify traps. Cunningness is not sufficient enough for a ruler to succeed. A person cannot always win a disagreement with a civilized conversation for example. Cleverness especially is also not appreciated as much as strength in some climates. Neither is strength sufficient enough trait for a ruler to succeed. For example, even though Machiavelli states it is better to be feared than loved, being expeditiously cruel to people will fuel unnecessary hatred. Individually, neither of the beast’s talents will allow a ruler to be effective. Both combined may embody certain measures such as deception and force, but serve as a common interest to both the ruler and his people, consequently maintaining contentment, order, and placidity.
A ruder who is acting as a fox, and who keeps his promises is going against his own interests, furthermore, his power. But, he should only feel obliged to break his promise when situations dictate him to do so-because not doing so would cause the ruler, and in return the state, harm. For example, what effect would keeping the promise have on the welfare of the people? Lying would be in the public’s best interest. Breaking promises is justified according to Machiavelli, due to the fact that men are evil by nature and cannot keep faith. Because of this, a ruler is also absolved from keeping his faith. Additionally, a ruler should deceive his people that he has the qualities of a good man, such as being honest, loyal and kind. No well liked politician has ever told his audiences that he intends to break his promises. Machiavelli states that throughout time that the ones who have educated themselves to be sly like a fox are the most successful.
It is questionable how a ruler should conduct himself. In order to be effective a ruler must embody a variety of differentiating qualities. Some of these qualities require him to act ‘beast-like’. A ruler must follow the example of the fox and the lion to be effective . Following that results in a ruler being politically cunning, and having the threat of force, hence creating a formidable opponent. Yet, in acting ‘beast-like’ means ruler must break his faith if it is the best interest of him and therefore his nation. Thus, unethical behaviors are sometimes required to uphold supreme values.