Paper Example on The Virtues of Power: Salisbury and Machiavelli

Introduction

Salisbury justifies the power of absolute monarch indifferent ways. An absolute monarch is justified as a leader who has been chosen by God. It is a kind of monarchy where one person or a ruler has an ultimate power which is not bound by any statute or even custom. An absolute monarch is good rulers are expected to have a good relationship between individual virtue and the wellbeing of the society (Nederman, 2009). Such kinds of leadership are not given to every member of the society but such leaders or rulers are raised by the prince to become a king. The people cannot object the graduation of a prince to kingship because people desire and love what satisfy the needs the prince. According to Salisbury monarch have heavenly right to gain supreme authority as they have the obligation to do justice to all.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

The chosen prince is given the good morals to rule and they are must profess Christian values and have good educational backgrounds (Hosler, 2015). Furthermore, they must be capable of observing social order and have the potential to endorse common good instead of pioneering their personal interest. On the basis of general description, the prince is a representation of public power. "I or all power if from the Lord God and it is with Him always." The actions of the prince are derived from God to ensure that God retains His powers. Prince just acts as a substitute for God and does not use his own authority to rule the people.

The prince is also reflected as an image of equity and works as the minister of public utility and servant of justice (Magill, Caponigri, & In Neill,1965). God also gives the prince an authority to punish those who do injustice to other people. This means that prince has a responsibility of promoting justice and ensure that there is no one who commits criminal offenses by encouraging people to do good and try to wrong nobody.

Salisbury argues that the prince is a representation of the whole society and it acts as the whole body while the prince becomes the head while other people close to the prince becomes the arms and body organs (Hosler, 2015). In addition, the masses represent the feet which are at a higher risk of damage thus require protection. Usually, it is a responsibility of all the members of the society to respect the head or the prince. This is a significant sign of how power and authority flow from the top to the bottom. It also shows that the wellbeing of the society depends on every member but not on leaders.

There are other responsibilities which are only assigned to monarchs but others have no such powers and rights. The Monarchs are the only people with the right and authority of killing and that right is not exercised illogically but only when it is necessary (Hosler, 2015). Furthermore, it is forbidden to attack the king as it attracts punitive punishment. This is because it is like attacking God himself although the society usually attacks kings who have disobeys God and His virtues. These kinds of Kings are said to have become a tyrant and therefore deserves death (Nederman, 2009). The prince is usually different from a tyrant, the prince is always obedient to the law of the land and rules the public through a will which is not imposed on them either by statute. The prince also delivers his rewards and services through the guidance of the law promising to the justification of his imminent position to act as an example to others.

The prince is different from the members of the society who are only responsible for looking for the affairs of individuals but look after the whole community. There is ascertain power conferred in him that makes him control all his subjects so that he can be abundant in himself to go out and bring good things for the members of the society (Hosler, 2015). Therefore, other people are expected to follow the footprints of the prince and this ensure that the whole society moves in the correct direction.

Salisbury also affirms that authority is rooted in the virtue of an individual person and this is important for political virtue that a person should have to become a prince or a king In (Magill, Caponigri, & In Neill,1965). He has a strong belief that the society is a natural whole that must have a proper social hierarchy. This idea is opposed by Machiavelli who argues that the society is held by brute power and assumes that hierarchical order is only creation of wise rulers but not God (Nederman, 2009). They're use their personal knowledge to create different levels upon which power and authority flow.

Conclusion

The truth about the ideas of Salisbury cannot be easily explained because they have no scientific proof and justification although they have a moral explanation. On the contrary, Machiavelli is also criticized for rejecting morality pretend to explain the reality of power and authority (Hosler, 2015). The discussion for both Salisbury and Machiavelli should be open to criticism so new ideas and opinion can come up to either support or undermine morality in the society.

References

Nederman, C. J. (2009). Lineages of european political thought: Explorations along the medieval/modern divide from John of Salisbury to Hegel. Washington. D.C: The catholic University of america Press.

Hosler, J. D. (2015). Niccolo Machiavelli, John of Salisbury, and the Originality ofArte della guerra. Viator, 46(2), 303-333. doi:10.1484/j.viator.5.105371

In Magill, F. N., In Caponigri, A. R., & In Neill, T. P. (1965). Masterpieces of Catholic literature, in summary form. New York: Salem Press.