Some Defenses of The Prince which I've recieved.

--------------------------------Some defenses of The Prince that I've recieved--------------------------------

         - But in the historical context, everything applies. You need to pay attention to the historical context for it to make sense.
           All your comments on how it doesn't apply now is silly.

Great. I can appreciate the historical context, I can appreciate how good it was for its time. However, that isn't what I'm critiquing it on. Since the book was put forward to me as a cornerstone of leadership - not just then, but NOW - I am treating it as such. In that context, all critique based on time applies.

         - This isn't a book about moral leading. It's a book about gaining and keeping power, with nothing about how to use that power.

I wish I could agree that it doesn't suggest courses of action which are moral or not. I wish it did say that it said nothing about how to use that power. However, it unfortunately does. Looking at the examples, there are many which are used as 'good' supports and show horrible behavior - such as killing entire families simply to try and keep another from gaining power, or oppressing citizens by focusing on the soldiers as 'greater' than the people. (in the second case, a truly skilled leader would be able to make peace between the majority of them. Also in the second case, in this day and age there is not so much difference between most soldiers and normal citizens. Could have been in the past, but it's true at this point at the least)

         - But this book isn't about the examples. You're getting too caught up in the specifics, it's about the basic principles
           conveyed through the examples.

I cannot agree with this either. First of all, the principles within the book are simple - a very skilled leader would be capable of figuring out many of them without the help of the book, and they would not need the examples to understand and apply the principles. People who are not as skilled would not be able to figure out the principles and how to apply them without the examples. If they were, the examples would not be necessary in the first place, and the entire book would be there for no coherently logical reason and should therefore not be viewed as particularly good. However, since there are examples, they will affect the interpretation of the principles for anyone reading it simply based on how the brain remembers things. For those who need the examples to learn, this effect is FAR stronger. In this way, the examples used as supports will cause worse behavior when they use horrible behavior in the example.

         - But the examples with horrible behavior are said to be horrible, it even states that in the book.

Once again: I can't agree. For an example (the one used when this defense was presented), I'll look at Severus. It does state that Severus was one man who "did not hesitate to commit every kind of iniquity against the people", and this is good. However, if you read beyond the statement that he did this, there are examples of his being 'good' as an example to follow - one explicit, and multiple implicit.

      | A prince... ought to choose the fox and the lion; because the lion cannot defend himself against snares and the fox cannot defend
      | himself against wolves. Therefore, it is necessary to be a fox to discover the snares and a lion to terrify the wolves.
      |
      | . . .
      |
      | because the actions of [Severus], as a new prince, were great, I wish to show briefly that he knew well how to counterfeit the
      | fox and the lion, which natures, as I said above, it is necessary for a prince to imitate.
      |
      | . . .
      |
      | He who will, therefore, carefully examine the actions of this man will find him a most valiant lion and a most cunning fox; he
      | will find him feared and respected by every one, and not hated by the army; and it need not be wondered at that he, a new man,
      | was able to hold the empire so well, because his supreme renown always protected him from that hatred which the people might have
      | conceived against him for his violence.

Reading through this (and noting the underlined portions), it is clear that Severus is portrayed as a good example to follow since he is skilled, despite being a despicable and horrible leader. If someone is explicitly stated to be wrong, but heavily implied and also explicitly stated to be a good example of a leader, then that is promoting the horrible behavior.

Other examples of this behavior are Hannibal, where his "inhuman cruelty" used to lead his army is put "among the wonderful deeds of Hannibal" and the duke quoted above, where he puts a cruel man in a position of absolute power over a new acquisition and then executes the man for doing what he was told, as well as slaughtering families because they could potentially be used as an excuse for another to come and seize his territory.