November 14

For “The Morals of the Prince”

Write a response to Machiavelli’s assertion that the ends justify the means. Do you think that in today’s world we can set aside how we get a goal achieved, instead focusing on what we get in the end? Think about the argument that getting someone to donate by giving them incentives is worth it because at least the people who need it get help. What do you think? Are there situations where Machiavelli’s could be a productive, logical tactic? Are there situations in which this tactic should never be used? Proofread and copy your work before you submit it.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email


Posted November 14, 2012 by tashak38 in category Uncategorized

About the Author

I live in the San Francisco Bay Area--Big Up to the East Bay

44 thoughts on “For “The Morals of the Prince”

  1. jennifer

    jennifer
    period2
    It is only acceptable in extreme situations to act in a dishonest manner to obtain something that you need. if someone is able to obtain a neccesity honestly it should br done so at all times except in the case of a erious emergency where time was not available. Machiavelli’s belief is the kind that is developed after someone has been cheated themselves. Even if someone treated another unfairly the victim shoud not take vengeance by acting accordingly as well.

    Reply
  2. Amacalli Duran

    Amacalli Duran
    Ms. Keeble
    AP English
    17 November 2012

    The notorious phrase “the ends justify the means” which originates from Niccolo Machiavelli’s essay refers to how individuals attempt to achieve an objective regardless of the methods used. This phrase comments on the ethics and morality of any action. In today’s society, modesty only exist in a rare few. Due to how corrupt society is, individuals are forced to achieve their goals whether the methods are legal or illegal, fair or foul, based on truth or lies, or good or evil. The people of today’s society prefer to only focus on their ending goal opposed to how they would reach it. An example is the situation where one is given an incentive to help those in need. Many view this situation as a reflection of one’s morals. It is argued that someone should want to help those less fortunate and should not be bribed to help. I argue that help is help. Although it is very unethical and selfish for someone to only help with they receive a personal gain, in the end help is given. Machiavelli’s tactic can be used for a variety of situations. This tactic could be applied if an individual had to tell a lie, which had no harmful effect on anyone, to help someone in misery. Also, another possible scenario where the tactic could be used is if someone discovered the cure for aids, but had to kill one person. The death of one person saved thousands. This tactic should not be applied to cheating on a test. Although the goal was to receive a high score, the method the individual used would only backfire on them. A more complex example would be the Holocaust. Although Hitler wanted to purify the Aryan race, as well as many other things, killing the Jews was not a proper and appropriate method. Although Machiavelli’s tactic seems logical, one will achieve any goal how they see morally fit.

    Reply
  3. Maliko Pearson-Chock

    Maliko P
    Ms. Keeble
    AP English
    25 November 2012

    In today’s society people only care about what happens as an end result. People don’t care how they get there even if it means they have to hurt others in the process. they will do whatever it takes to reach their goal and nothing will stop them from reaching it. People only care about what aids them. An example of this in the essay is when people were donating money, and other things to people in need, but they got a reward for donating something. This shows the motive of the people who donated money and other things to the needy was to gain credibility for their selves rather than just doing it out of the kindness of their hearts. Personally, I don’t think we should worry about what just benefits us individually but all of us as a society. This is why I have come to the conclusion that Machiavelli’s tactic are illogical because if we do something good the end result should not matter.

    Reply
  4. Abraham N.

    Abraham N.
    Ms. Keeble
    AP English 11
    20 November 2012
    Period 5

    I somewhat agree with Machiavelli’s assertion that the ends justify the means, it just depends on the situation. For example, if your back is against the wall and it has something to do with your family, your life, your future, or anything of that nature, you can try to achieve that goal at all costs, but if the goal you are trying to attain is an easy one, you shouldn’t try to cheat to get it and just do it the honest or honorable way. One example for the honorable way is if you’re applying to college and have to write a personal narrative about yourself to get in, if you lie and make up things that happened in your life that actually didn’t happen. If that is the reason, the honorable way is the best way. Finally about the donation argument, I think it’s okay for people to help out other people if they get something out of it because it benefits both parties in the situation, and do you want someone helping people less fortunate just because they are getting something out of it, or nobody helping at all?

    Reply
  5. Veronica

    Veronica
    Nov. 16, 2012
    Ms. Keeble, 1st period

    Personally, I do think it’s important to set goals for yourself, so you can have something to look forward too in the future and do whatever it takes to accomplish the goal. By doing whatever it takes, I’m referring to doing all the work necessary and not jumping through any hoops in order to overcome the obstacle established. In addition, Machiavelli is sometimes right on how we have to give and take since that’s how society survives. His tactics are not always used when it comes ti being illogical.

    Reply
  6. Rachael B.

    Rachael Brandt
    Ms. Keeble
    AP English 11, Per. 2
    16 November 2012

    I believe people do have to fixate their minds on the outcome of a goal. Why do something if you do not know what would come out of it? People do not pick out a major in college without the basis of what profession they would have in the end. It does not matter what one has to do to accomplish such a goal as long as that person got what they wanted all along which was already thought of in the beginning. In the argument, I think a person would give something up like money unless they are aware of what the money is being used for. An example would be the American people who pay tax dollars. Majority would probably not want to give up that money without knowing the gist of what it is paying for. People want to know what is being made out of their money in advance before giving it away. Machiavelli’s tatic should be used for any reason unless the outcome is not justified.

    Reply
  7. Yarelli Lopez

    Yarelli Lopez
    Ms. Keeble
    AP English Language and Composition
    16 November 2012

    I strongly believe that everyone has set aside how to get a goal achieved rather than focusing on what they get in the end at least once. For example, there are people that sometimes do their homework assignments at late hours in the night and focus on finishing it fast rather then thinking about the quality of their work. There are times where Machiavelli’s could be a productive and logical tactic even thought it would not always be the right thing to do. If you want to justify something you should have enough evidence to prove your justification/explanation and if it is bad try to make it look good. Machiavelli’s tactic should not be used in situations where it becomes illogical to even use the tactic.

    Reply
  8. Niauni Hill

    Niauni Hill
    Ms. Keeble
    AP English, Period 1
    16 November 2012

    I think it is neccesary to focus on how to get to a goal rather than rather than focusing on what we get in the end. In today’s society people cheat to get where they are now. So does it matter about how we get there? Yes. It is extremely important, because without thinking how do you accomplish things? Right. You can’t. I feel some people are going against what is right by cheating their way into getting positive things. For example, the kids received extra credit who helped out at the charity fund. Initially it was a good accomplishment. His (Machiavelli’s) point would not work in this situation and it would not make any sense.

    Reply
  9. Sidney

    Sidney
    AP English
    Period 1
    Today the importance of quality does not weigh as much as the ability to succeed. For example, education. It’s not a good idea to use this tactic for education but it happens. One can cheat their way, or BS their way through school and on into college. Until one day, when it is time to put what they have learned to the ultimate test, and start a career. As long as a goal is reached, everything else is put into place, and does not matter as much.  I think it is morally incorrect to “Bribe” or convince people to participate in charity but free is free. If help goes to the people that need it, I have nothing against it. As long as the volunteers, volunteer within a nice manor and get work done, all is well.

    Reply
  10. Heather H.

    Heather H.
    AP English, Period 2
    Ms. Keeble
    November 16, 2012

    Humans are often times selfish creatures. We want what we want when we want it, and some will do whatever it takes to be successful. The strive for success will inevitably cause harm in one way or another. This harm is sadly usually inflicted on an innocent party. Machiavelli’s assertion that the ends justify the means is often a rationalization used by those who hurt others in order to gain personal success. To move up in the world, people will lie, cheat, steal, and sometimes worse. Take, for example, the organization PETA. PETA has in the past blown up animal research labs in the name of animal rights. However, animals are undoubtedly killed in these sorts of violent protests. The leaders of PETA may try to comfort a guilty conscious by thinking that they are getting their message across and will ultimately stop animal research. However, there is always the question of whether or not the lives of the animals were worth a protest that can easily be counteracted by a few years of construction. Situations like this, where lives are at stake, should never have Machiavelli’s tactic applied to it. The ends simply do not justify the means. There are, on the other hand, a few circumstances under which his tactic is useful. Instances where the only party that could be harmed in the means is oneself are perfectly suitable for this tactic. For example, staying up all night watching four straight seasons of Charlie’s Angles may lead to sleep deprivation. However, if one also comes out as being world champion trivia expert on the subject, the ends may be worth the means, and Machiavelli’s tactic may champion over the potentially devastating medical consequences.

    Reply
  11. Joelynn D.

    Joelynn D.

    Ms. Keeble

    AP English – 2nd

    16 November 2012

    Response

    I think that in today’s world it is rare to see individuals who do not use the assertion that the end justifies the mean. And even though it is generally not a good idea to always focus on just the outcome, it varies from case to case. For giving incentives for donations, there is no harm done to anyone or anything else. So in giving incentives for donations, people are doing something good for the community while helping themselves as well. But in a case of cheating or lying on a test, application, etc. the positive effects are only short-lived. Cheating gives an individual temporary satisfaction, but once that runs out, they are back at where they started-knowing nothing and having to resort to cheating all over again. From these examples, it can be seen that there are cases where Machiavelli’s tactics may or may not work and may or may not be up to the moral standards of society.

    Reply
  12. Joelynn D.

    Joelynn Deng

    Ms. Keeble

    AP English – 2nd

    16 November 2012

    Response

    I think that in today’s world it is rare to see individuals who do not use the assertion that the end justifies the mean. And even though it is generally not a good idea to always focus on just the outcome, it varies from case to case. For giving incentives for donations, there is no harm done to anyone or anything else. So in giving incentives for donations, people are doing something good for the community while helping themselves as well. But in a case of cheating or lying on a test, application, etc. the positive effects are only short-lived. Cheating gives an individual temporary satisfaction, but once that runs out, they are back at where they started-knowing nothing and having to resort to cheating all over again. From these examples, it can be seen that there are cases where Machiavelli’s tactics may or may not work and may or may not be up to the moral standards of society.

    Reply
  13. Rebekah N.

    Rebekah N.
    Ms. Keeble
    AP English 11
    16 November 2012

    No matter who you are, or where your from, you desire what you lack, and most will and have went to every possible source to get that so-desired item. Whether this item be materialistic, an emotional characteristic trait, or a physical subject, again, most will go to any degree to gain what one lacks. Furthermore, I agree with Machiavelli’s tactic, that putting away the more important, to achieve a set goal is the right thing to do. This quality is what I call determination. What is this world with out determined people? Without the determined white Southerners forcing slaves to maintain agriculture with sharecroppers we would be a third world country still hugging the eastern sea board, surrounded by hostile European colonies on all sides. Even when you have an academically determined student, most of the time they will go to any extent to get the perfect score despite the outcome. Sometimes the sacrifices made are illegal but nothing is usually regretted until the doer get’s caught.

    Reply
  14. David M.

    Well I for one truly enjoy a question like this. Does the action of “the end justifies the means” work. In my opinion I suppose there is never a reason for humankind to go to such lengths to achieve a goal. However, there are times where this method is of some use, although it is not recommended. When dealing with people’s lives, Machiavelli’s method is never an option. To sacrifice lives for any situation is not the way to go about things. No one is expendable and no one dies for results.
    Machiavelli’s methods can also be of some use. Human sacrifice does no make this method right, but to benefit mankind without such losses does make this method useful. For instance, making a cure for an illness that could destroy countless people, or even cramming for a test on the last day. However, now that I think about it doing such action actually hurts ourselves in a way. It is not the smartest idea, but it can help sometimes. I hope that we as a species are not forced to make such decisions, because no end justifies the certain means that are taken to get such a results.

    Reply
  15. Bilguun B.

    Bilguun Batdorj
    Ms. Keeble
    AP English
    Nov 15 2012

    If a person logically analyzes Machiavelli’s viewpoints then that person, sooner or later, will find out it does not apply to today’s society. Machiavelli’s statements should be aimed at a audience who is in a position of power. A student cannot take a hold of Machiavelli’s advice because the student must obey by the rules so he/she can succeed in the long run. But a office employee or an manager can take his advice to good use. For the argument of whether or not giving incentives to people who donate, the answer is that it does not matter. Giving incentives to people who donate does not harm anybody in the slightest bit. At a critical thought, giving incentives is actually a rather ingenious method of getting people to donate.

    Reply
  16. Hannah R.

    Hannah Reddy
    Ms. Keeble
    AP English, Period 2
    15 November 2012

    In today’s society I do see a lot of people who hold those standards that Machiavelli talked about. People are constantly trampling others if it means that they are on top, no matter what it takes to get there. However, it’s a societal matter; we see today that everyone does this. In this case, age does not matter. You see high school students do it to other high school students, so what that they could be the most popular student? You also see adults do it. When it comes down to it, and there’s only one position left, and there are a million and one people fighting for that job, you are going to do whatever you can to make yourself on top. In this economy, and in this society, it is important to be on top, because on top means that you’ll survive. This kind of relates to Social Darwinism, only the fittest (for that environment) survive. Also, thinking in the way of getting incentives for “good deeds” falls in this category. In a way it is absurd that people should be bribed to do something good, but in the end, people do benefit from it, and if it wasn’t that way, then who knows if we would even do it in the first place! Our society has come out to be “I won’t help you, unless it benefits me in some way.” It is not how I believe society should be, I think we get what we deserve and we should achieve it truthfully, but sometimes it just doesn’t work like that.

    Reply
  17. Phuong-My N.

    Phuong-My N.
    Keeble
    AP English, Per. 2
    15 November 2012

    The Morals of the Prince

    I believe that in today’s world, many people still use Machiavelli’s assertion that the ends justify the means. Most people don’t care what they do to achieve something as long as they achieve it. No one thinks about the steps they took to reach something anymore. With the argument of getting someone to donate by giving them incentives is worth it because at least the people who need it get help, I believe that is a situation where Machiavelli’s could be a productive and logical tactic. To be honest, Machiavelli has paid off for me once. For example, tonight. I spent all my time studying for my Pre-Calculus test that I will be taking tomorrow and I totally ignored all my homework assignments for my other classes. I finished my study guides for Pre-Calculus, but now I am rushing to finish all of my other homework by tonight. It has paid off in a way that I am prepared for my Pre-Calculus test, but not anything else. I believe Machiavelli is a productive tactic when it comes to a big project or studying but it should never be used in obtaining a significant other. What I mean by that is, you should not lie your way into impressing someone just to get them as a end result because that would never work out for you in the end. Your significant other will eventually find out you have been lying to them all this time just to get them. That is one situation where Machiavelli would be illogical.

    Reply
  18. Alexis L.

    Alexis L.
    AP English 11
    Ms. Keeble
    11/15/12
    In our world today, people need to achieve their goals in an acceptable way. Some successful people didn’t care who he/she hurted to get to the top because they never cared how they got their goals, only when they got to the end. The logical way of achieving a goal isn’t always the correct one. It may cause people to lose their integrity or their morals. Some ways of acquiring things may have a positive effect on both the involved people. Incentives arez good examples because one person may gain something of value for helping a person in need. If there are no incentives involved then its the person choice if they want to help or not. It all depends on the person doing the action; he/she shouldn’t be forced to do something they don’t agree with even if it’s beneficial for someone else. It’s logical to help someone, but some people just don’t always care for others.

    Reply
  19. Ryan C.

    Ryan C.
    Ap English
    Period 1

    I think the most important thing is to get the goal done. Most of our society thinks the same way. When we are told to do something or meet a certain requirement we do what is minimal to meet these requirements. For example, when given school projects, we just meet the requirements. Other example of meeting goals, is to make maximum profit without thinking of the end result. That is sending jobs away to foreign countries to make the same product but at a cheaper rate. In all Machiavellian’s tactic works on certain situations.

    Reply
  20. Alexia George

    Nowadays, most people think that doing community service makes you a good person, but in reality, it doesn’t. You must do this from your heart and because you really want to. Whereas, in most cases people do it because it is required of a class or club, or perhaps for the benefit of college applications. By this you are achieving to get ahead. It is obvious that what you accomplish is more important than how you accomplish it. I think they are equally important parts of setting a goal. Machiavelli’s tactic is logical for the scenario described. My views lean both ways on whether it is right or wrong to give incentives to donate. It’s a more positive outcome for the person receiving the donation than negative because although the person had to be a savage, in the end of the day they got what they needed. When you have what you need then you should automatically be happy.

    Reply
  21. Canyon R

    Canyon Riley
    Ms. Keeble
    AP English 11
    15 November 2012
    Machiavelli’s assertion defines how history is written in this country. Throughout history, many important figures and countries have a certain persona that rarely changes. For example, when I first learned about World War II and the influential people of that time, I thought that the Allies were heroes only because they stopped the Axis Powers from taking over the world. But as I got older, I learned the Allies participated in total war against the Axis Powers as a means to end the war faster. When the US dropped their atomic bombs onto Japan, we tend to forget about the thousands of innocent people who lost their lives in the bombing. Instead, we commemorate the day Japan surrendered. I still consider the Allies as being heroes, but they had some dark tactics to save their own people. We should not give people incentives to donate because that defeats the moral purpose of donating something. Yes, the donations do help, but you are bribing him or her to do the right thing. The donor is helping his or herself more than those who need it the most. Machiavelli’s logic can only work if we do not show concern towards it.

    Reply
  22. Kiloni D.

    Kiloni Driskell
    Ms. Keeble
    AP English
    Period 2
    15 November 2012

    In today’s world, setting aside the right way to achieve a goal is not the best way. Recently I over heard a girl telling her friend what she wanted to be when she grows up and she said a doctor. Her friend asked why and her response was that they make alot of money every year and they wanted to be rich. She said she was going to just get the work done and move on. I do not think that should be a reason to become a doctor. You should be a doctor because you want to help others not because of the money. People just want to benefit theirselves without thinking about others. Another experiance was when I was in my English class two days ago and I was mad about my grade on my essay because I knew for a fact my A was going down to a B. I wanted that A so I can have a higher G.P.A than last years and get into a good college when i graduate a college. Ms. Keeble told me it is not about the grade because we need to learn these different skills. I just wanted my goal to be reached; I did not really care for anything else but my grade. Machiavelli’s assertion can be logical. Offering incentives for help is bribery. People doing something good for others should be done because they want to because they want to help their community rather than being pushed to.

    Reply
  23. Gonzalo Haro

    Gonzalo Haro
    AP Lang. and Comp.
    Ms. Keeble 5th
    Nov. 15, 2012

    In today’s society, Machiavelli’s assertion could be used in a good way, and in a bad way. If “bribing” people into donating for a good cause is what it takes to help people, then do it. It’s not hurting anyone, and the outcome is positive which further justifies the means. If you do something that affects someone negatively in order to reach your goal, then it’s bad and it definitely shouldn’t be done. For example, cutting in line, lying in order to get what you want, etc.. I would think about who is being affected, how are they being affected, is the outcome negative or positive, and is it worth it. It all comes down to people’s morals. If the outcome is positive, do it. If it’s negative, think about it.

    Reply
  24. Haley Rosano

    Haley Rosano
    Ms. Keeble
    AP English 11 per 2
    15 November 2012

    Everyone is looking for a good outcome; by nature we are all selfish people. There is the occasional time where people do things simply out of the kindness of their heart, but even then they are looking for the credit of charity work. Machiavelli’s assertion should not be followed. There is no way that we as people can fully devote ourselves to one thing when there are about twenty other things going on. Either something gets neglected and goes bad, or everything goes bad. I have the guilt of always doing this, especially with school, even my friends; it’s all about the competition. Everyone wants to be better than someone at something; in the end you are the one with the bragging rights. Life in itself is competition. As soon as you lose at something, you either give up or work ten times harder than you were before. When you do this, you lose sight of other aspects of your life.

    Reply
  25. Caitlin H.

    Caitlin Huie
    Ms. Keeble
    AP English Per 2
    15 November 2012

    Sadly, in today’s culture people only care about the final product. No one usually cares about how we get there. As long as we reach the end, everything will turn out the way we want. Everyone takes shortcuts to reach the end. People cheat to get a good grade or they use bribes to get people to do things. In the case of the donation, I honestly don’t really care that they used incentives. In the end, it’s going to a good cause and the people will get help. If that’s what they need to do then let them do it. Nothing bad will come out the action. Machiavelli’s is productive and logical in this sort of situation. There are no negative effects of anyone’s actions. In the case of cheating on work, I think that Machiavelli’s isn’t logical. People are ought to be caught sometime in their life. Also, if someone cheated on everything assignment, that person would not be successful later on. The person would be too dependent on others and he/she wouldn’t know how to handle being independent.

    Reply
  26. Jonathan v

    Jonathan V
    Ms.Keeble
    period 1
    Ap Lang and Cop
    16 November 2012

    1. People these days think of getting a goal accomplished is procrastination. Although this may not be the best way to do the job it is getting done but unorganized. Machiavelli’s tactic does sound reasonable, but to any this does not matter because the job needs to be done at any cost, even if it is done unorganizedly it still gets done but without that much charisma and dedication. Procrastination is a logical tactic because you are technically getting the job done, but at the same time it is poorly one without that much of that structure and the time it needed to be done with. This tactic should never be used when a big project or job has to be done because when it is something big like doing a big essay or the blue prints of a skyscraper in a big city. It is a bad situation in both of these because they are both important, to the degree that they could change the ideas people view as a society even an essay can change how others perceive a public or a world event. offering incentives to someone to get them to do something nice for others is not a good idea because a person in order to want to help has to do it at heart not because they were pressured to do. Doing so, there is an outside force pulling on his or her charity side and making them do something charity related and receiving something in exchange, that is totally illogical in all perspectives. Donating something has to come out of own will, the overpowering feeling to help those in need and not get anything in exchange, but only the most satisfying words of gratification “Thank you”

    Reply
  27. Aaron CHon

    Aaron Chon
    Ms Keeble
    AP English 11
    15 November 2012

    Once upon a time, morals and ethics had some amount of value that people actually respected. That is precisely that it is once upon a time. Today is very much different from that fairy tale perspective. Of course, it would be unreasonable to judge that there are no good people in the world, but it is much more reasonable to say that ideas such as “good” and “bad” have been turned into allegories that are only slightly upheld by the institution that we know as the law. Many teachers today are convinced that the process is just as important, if not more, than the end result, but logic tells us that this is not true. In a hypothetical situation where a person could own the world for chopping off another person’s arm, it would be clear that most people would say that doing something like that is inhumane. But such a response is only because the situation is hypothetical. Should the situation actually arise, much more people would be justifying their actions rather than choosing to do the right thing immediately. Overall, Machiavelli’s tactic is one that is logically sound, and one that most people would certainly employ for their own benefit, but then one must also wonder how much people would actually consider what it is that they are losing by finding the result.

    Reply
  28. Johan O.

    Johan Ocegueda
    AP English
    Ms. Keeble
    15 November 2012
    Now at days it does not matter how you get something, all that matters is that you got it. A lot of people have a lot of pride in how they do something. A lot of people say cheating is bad and all they do is the right way. But the truth is that a lot of times the nice person does not win. A lot of times the cheater gets exactly what he wants without doing half of the work the good person did. It doesnt matter how you get the win, all that matters is that you get the win. In “Changes” a song by Tupac. Tupac says “I made a “g” today, yeah but you did it in a sleezy way.” In this case, Tupac talks about getting money. This man is selling drugs outside not caring what happens as long they get money. They dont care if they hurt someone or anything. They just want the money. Who cares if they getting dirty money, they get money and thats all you need in life.

    Reply
  29. DaJohn Wade

    There are many ways to prosper and accomplish a goal. In certain situations, i believe it is okay for an an incentive to be included. Machiavelli’s assertion is what many people do, despite the repercussions warned by elders or others. Eventhough we were told to have integrity for ourselves, a gift could have someone let their integrity sit out for once. For charitable uses, I can stand by giving an incentive for someone who donated. You are thanking them. For other means as in electing the president, I disagree with Machiavelli. If a BMW is rewarded for voting Obama and a Porsche for Romney, I might consider going for the Porsche. Unfortunately, there may be a time and a place for what people may consider as bribery. Society today has a funny way of finding loopholes around situations seen unethical, yet society told us not to partake in these loopholes. Overall, giving to get is justifiable based on the situation, which is contreversial because the decision made could be a baised one.

    Reply
  30. valeria

    Valeria D.
    AP English
    5th Period
    15 November, 2012
    I do believe people these days use Machiavelli’s assertion for both good and bad. One common thing that a lot of human beings do is their New Years resolution. A lot of people wait for New Years just to start to work out. Most of these pewople tend to give up soon after they even start. But most of them never start and this to me is an example where their goal has failed. Why wait until New Years when we could just start now? In my opinion, it will give a better result and a much more progressive motivation. Both of these examples work for a bad achivement and a great one.

    Reply
  31. Maria F.

    Maria F

    Period 2
    In todays society, setting aside the right way to do something to reach a goal is often done by many people. Sometimes people do things the last minute because they dont want to do it in time to make it done well. They just want to receive a grade for the assignment. People often just take the easy way out and end up not doing something so well but if it gets them by they are ok with it.In this case Machiaveli assretion can be proven wrong in some cases. why lie to be on the top of many others if in reality you are only lying to yourself.

    Reply
  32. Tanzeel H.

    Tanzeel Hak
    Ms. Keeble
    AP English, Period 2
    16 November 2012

    In today’s World, setting aside how we get a goal achieve doesn’t really happen. All around us are people, who just have goals or a dream that they will do anything to get. We often see politicians, who want to get elected by telling lies about their opponent’ often making it seem like their opponent said something they didn’t (for example the presidential debates). We also see it a lot in the music industry, most of today’s rap talking simply about getting money. It’s like most rappers don’t even make an attempt to create music with actual meaning, they just want the money, knowing that their albums will sell no matter how much thought they actually put into the lyrics. I do agree with how people are given incentives to donate. Everyone seems to always do things for their own benefit, so if there weren’t any incentives there most likely would not be any donations. It’s just how the World functions. A lot of people brought up really good situation, where it would make sense to use Machiavelli’s tactic, which was getting an homework assignment done no matter what the time was, an hour, days, or a week before it was due. I could think of many ways that Machiavelli’s would be wrong to use. If I were to get money in the wrong way, like murdering somebody or selling drugs knowing it would ruin lives.

    Reply
  33. Alicia

    Alicia O.
    Ms.Keeble
    AP English
    15 November 2012
    In today’s world using this tactic of not caring about how to accomplish the goal and just worrying about the end outcome is helpful.At the same time there are some situations in which this tactic is not helpful. For example, when I had my US History test I did not study until that day in the morning but I managed to get a good grade. In this case I put aside how to accomplish my goal. All I cared about was about getting my good grade. In other situations this tactic is not that good of use when it comes to building a bridge the process should not be done in a hurry or else it would not have a good outcome.In terms of offering incentives for help is a form of bribery but at least in my opinion the person is helping out. Also, the person does it because he/she cares too or else the person will not help no matter with the incentives given. At the same time it does provide the person with a force to make them want to help which makes the tactic illogical.

    Reply
  34. Merritt W.

    Merritt Walker
    Ms. Keeble 2
    15 November 2012

    In today’s society people only care about the end result. People don’t care how they get there, or what it takes, as long as they reach their goal. People only care about what benefits them. In the essay we read, people were donating money, and other things to people in need, but they got a reward for donating something. Sure the people got the things they need. Sometimes I think it’s not good to just think about the ending result or how it will benefit us. Society isn’t looking out for each other they are just looking out for themselves. Based on each situation Machiavelli’s assertion can be logical or illogical, good or bad.

    Reply
  35. Kiana Ledda

    Kiana Ledda
    Keeble
    AP English, Period 5
    16, November 2012
    Today’s society is all about simply getting a task done. It doesn’t matter how, just as long as it gets accomplished. I personally think that today’s society is really selfish because mostly everyone does whatever they can to benefit for themselves. For instance, a student who didn’t study for a test will simply cheat off of another student to get a better grade. Obviously, this is one of the worst ways to accomplish something because there is lack of dignity, but as long as the task is done, then we as human beings think of it as nothing anymore. With the huge debate of donating by giving incentives to people who are in need, is somewhat considered bribery. We go with our morals to donate, but I think that we lack compassion to others in need. In the end, I think that Machiavelli’s tactic is logical because people’s actions should be their own choice, not by force.

    Reply
  36. Natasha R.

    Natasha R
    Keeble
    period 5
    15 November 2012

    Personally, I think that a lot of people don’t actually set a goal and climb their way to it, now a days it’s necessary that the goal is achieved in any way. That is why there is that saying “Survival of the fitist.” Even though hurting others is the way to go, some people come out successful.Machiavelli’s way of doing things on your own and completing the task will better you ,as well as feeling good that it was accomplished. Going the the arguement of giving incentives, I see nothing wrong of giving someone/thing for an exchange for your own benifit. Often times that is how it goes in life, there are times where it is needed to do something so that you can reach a higher level. Knowing people in general, they would not do anything for the good of someone else unless it benifited them in a way.

    Reply
  37. Efrain E

    Efrain E.
    Period 1
    November 15, 2012
    AP English 11

    I believe Machiavelli’s assertion holds true in most instances. If the end is positive and bring more help than harm to society, then the end definitely justifies the means. However, if the means are something horrible and many people are hurt because of it, Machiavelli’s assertion is most certainly not true. If you have to kill millions of people to save a million others, then the end may not justify the means. In general, it is all a matter of opinion. Some may argue that doing terrible things is justified if it is for a good cause. Others may argue that doing something bad is ultimately unjust, no matter what it was for.

    Reply
  38. Dominique

    Dominique
    AP English 11 Per 2
    Ms. Keeble
    November 15, 2012

    In my opinion, I think that a lot of people today use Machiavelli’s assertion, even if it is not a property we shouldn’t necessarily follow. There are multiple situations people go through everyday that puts them in the position where they will do anything just to stay where they are. We do not want to lose our current positions or power due to that fact that we cannot keep up with or complete the task. I know I sometimes personally focus more on the outcome, and I will do whatever I can to make it happen. For example, I will stay up all night to complete a homework assignment and lose sleep, just so I can pass the class. When I was studying for my AP Biology test a few weeks ago, I would put off every class and spend hours past midnight every night just to make sure I understood the material so I could pass. I didn’t give any of my other homework time or I just copied it, because all my time was focused on studying. Surprisingly it paid off, and I passed the test with a B. This is a situation where Machiavelli paid off, even if it might have done a little harm toward my other acedemic classes, which wasn’t the best idea. On the other hand, there are many situations where this concept should not be used. For example, building a house should never be rushed. If the workers don’t take the time to make a stable house and makes sure it works, it will all fall down.

    Reply
  39. Sarai P.

    Sarai P.
    Keeble
    AP English
    16 November 2012

    It has been said, “Winners never cheat, and cheaters never win.” But sadly, it seems that in today’s society it is more like, “Cheaters never prosper, unless they get away with it.” Truthfully, it is within human nature to not care how we attain something. Ultimately what matters is the final product. Personally, I believe that today’s society lacks integrity as to how they accomplish something. An example would be the fast food industry, which McDonalds is now a mongol of. In order to become as successful as they are, they have had to become a monopolistic company, leaving no room for small Mom and Pop companies to spring up and have a fighting chance. Clearly, McDonalds wants to be head honcho, but because of this, they have traded in good morals for the benefit of a dollar. But not only is this scenario seen at a large scale, it is also seen in everyday citizens. Schools nationwide condone children to bring in canned goods for their local food drives. This alone seems like a charitable act, but no longer is it just for the good of others. Children are seeking out benefits by donating foods, which makes many wonder, where is compassion for others. No longer is society looking out for others, but rather we are looking out for ourselves.

    Reply
  40. Rachel N.

    Rachel N.
    Ms. Keeble
    AP English Language & Composition
    16 November 2012

    All over the world, people are suffering whether it is to the greatest degree of starvation or to the typical struggles of possessing confidence among our peers. When we use propaganda or incentives to persuade someone to donate something to benefit someone else, this is not a crime. Although, it does have its consequences. Even if we donate something to someone else just to satisfy our own selfish ambitions, at least the person in need received their necessities. We cannot convince everyone to give with a pure heart, but we can portray the benefits of giving so they are aware of them. Although, this type of giving will not last long-term. If people give only to please themselves, this creates a type of culture where materialism and what you want is the only thing that is valued. Our world, in the long run, will turn into one where there will be no real love anymore. It will be one where we will do whatever it takes to satisfy our own desires that war within us. This type of culture is not one that is caring and fulfilling, but superficial and selfish. Is this the type of environment we want to breed into our world? Or one that encourages people to give because they so desire? This produces the opposite of selfishness, but true giving. A kind of culture like this, will maximize the benefits of helping more people. Isn’t this what all humans desire? To be cared about and thought of because we are considered special to someone else? Machiavelli’s tactic is wrong because in the end, our world will be emotionally destroyed.

    Reply
  41. Desiree N.

    Desiree N.

    Ms. Keeble

    AP English 11

    14 November 2012

    In today’s world, I think it is neccesary to just focus on the end result of getting a goal rather than focusing on how we reached that goal. There is going to be a lot of cheating to get to goals in today’s society. Most people nowadays only care for the well-being of themselves, whatever benefits them. But what only matters is that the goal was reached, it doesn’t matter how, at least in some cases. For example, I don’t think it was such a big deal that extra credit was offered to students who helped out with a charity fund, in the end it goes for a good cause. Machiavelli’s tactic would work in this case. Machiavelli’s tactic wouldn’t be logical to use in the case of finishing an essay on time by plagiarizing, this would just get you into a lot of trouble. His tactic is logical, but not in all situations.

    Reply
  42. Elisha Hussain

    Elisha Hussain
    AP English 11
    Ms. Keebler
    November 14, 2012

    Setting aside a way to get a goal achieved instead of focusing on what is given in the end can be both logical and illogical. For example, if you procrastinate on doing something whether it being something major or minor it doesn’t really matter a long as you get it done. As long as the task is completed everything turns out alright. In this sense Machiaveli’s assertion is logical and sensible. On the other hand if you have a person who cheats to make their way on top, they have no sense of what their future will hold. Meaning that they think that they will achieve everything regardless of what others say about cheaters never prospering. Machiaveli’s assertion here would be illogical. Honestly, if you give incentives to someone who deserves it without bribing them to do something for you it seems like the right way to go. On the other hand if you give money to someone and blackmail or bribe them to do a task for you it would seem very illogical and wrong to do. The only situations in which this tactic should never be used is if the person who is gaining the incentives doesn’t really need it or deserve it. Basically, giving incentives can be good, bad, logical, and illogical based on the way you handle the situation.

    Reply
  43. David .D

    David Delgado
    Ms. Keeble
    AP English
    Period 2
    14 November 2012

    In today’s modern day setting aside the correct way to achieve a goal is not the best way to go, but some people do it anyways. For example, lets say for an instance I procrastinated and I waited until twelve midnight to complete this blog, then using Machiavelli’s tactic would be the best option for me. My objective was accomplished and I finished my work, although my work may have been unorganized and and not make sense due to me doing the homework so late. The reason why I would do the work anyways even if it was twelve am is because it’s better to try and get a good grade then to not do the homework and receive a zero on the assignment, therefore Machiavelli’s tactic would be positive in this situation. An example of when Machiavelli’s tactic is negative is when a person gets a dog and cares for the dog for about a year. All of a sudden the person doesn’t want the dog anymore and therefore tries to put it up for adoption, but no one takes it. Then the person decides to not care for the dog anymore and lets the dog die. If someone were to give incentives to people, to make them donate money to people in need would be a good thing, then again it would be a bad thing, it visa versa. The guy who is getting people to donate is a good guy, but the other people who are getting rewards for it aren’t. Those people who are donating for the rewards are being made to do it for the fame and glory. I say that Machiavelli’s tactic in this case isn’t logic because theses people should be donating by choice not for the fame and glory. Machiavelli’s tactic can go either way it can be logical or illogical depending on the situation.

    Reply
  44. Jessica A

    Jessica A.
    Ms. Keeble
    AP Lang. and Composition. Per 5
    14 November 2012.

    In today’s world, setting aside the right way to do something just to attain a goal isn’t correct, but sometimes it can be considered a logical tactic. For example, if you forget that you had a research paper due the next morning and you stayed up all night to complete it, then using Machiavelli’s tactic can be considered logical. You essentially complete your work. Of course cramming all the information in a matter of a few hours isn’t the right way to go about that goal, but you know that if you wanted to receive a good grade in that class, you would do whatever it takes to complete the assignment, therefore Machiavelli’s tactic is positive in this case. Now, let’s consider a relationship in which the man wanted to break up with the women, but couldn’t find the courage to do so. Rather than speaking with her face-to-face, he went behind her back and did terrible things so that she could leave him and he would avoid the troubles of leaving her. In this way, Machiavelli’s tactic is wrong, because it’s not fair for the women, and the man has no heart or integrity. As for the example with incentives and help, many people would agree that doing something good for others should be done because that individual wants to contribute to society and the welfare of others. Offering incentives for help is bribery to a certain extent. In this case, Machiavelli’s tactic is illogical, because doing something good for others should be a choice, rather than an outside force.

    Reply

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.