Moral Qualities of a Leader Niccolo Machiavelli felt that a leader should look like he has morals instead of actually having them. He felt that the image a leader portrayed was way more important than how the leader actually was. He felt that it was alright if a leader lied to his people and it was necessary to execute a few people to make an example of the rest. Machiavelli is quoted as saying, “Nevertheless, generosity employed in such a way as to give you a reputation for it will injure you, because if it is employed virtuously, and as one should employ it, it will not be recognized, and you will not avoid the infamy of its opposite.” (Machiavelli 54) What Machiavelli is saying here is that to be successful a leader needs to appear to be good even if he is not. He’s also saying that a leader who is virtuous will not succeed and will not be appreciated by his people. In my opinion, I feel that a leader must possess some degree of honesty and generosity. I feel that one important quality a leader must possess is honesty. Without honesty a government will eventually fail. People will eventually find the truth out about certain things and when they do it will be not good for the government. I feel that even though governments should always be honest that this isn’t the case most times. Governments lie to their subjects all the time so they feel safe or to get them to believe whatever the government wants to get things accomplished. Machiavelli felt that a leader did not need to be honest but just appear to be. He felt that a leader should lie when it’s and tell the truth when it’s suitable. I disagree with this idea but I do feel that it works. The problem with this idea is that once a leader lies too many times all trust is lost and he will most likely be ousted. Another a quality that is important in leadership is generosity. Machiavelli felt that a leader should often be cruel to his subjects. I’m in disagreement with this idea. The only time that a leader should be harsh is when it is deserved. Setting examples out of people is just not an effective way to lead. Machiavelli thought that by doing this sometimes that a ruler’s subject would have fear and would not act out. This method is not good because the subjects won’t respect the ruler and will rather be fearful of him and try to get rid of him at the first chance they get. Machiavelli says “Therefore, a prince, being unable to use this virtue of generosity in a manner that will not harm himself if he is known for it, should, if he is wise, not concern himself about the reputation of being miserly-wise, not concern himself about the reputation of being miserly. With time he will come to be considered more generous, once it is evident that, as a result of his parsimony, his income is sufficient, he can defend himself from anyone who wages war against him, and he can undertake enterprises without overburdening his people. In this way he appears as generous to all those from whom he takes nothing, who are countless, and as miserly to all those to whom he gives nothing, who are few.” (Machiavelli 55) As is evident from this quote, Machiavelli feels that the way a ruler appears is far more important than the way he acts. He feels that by not taking anything from most subjects and by not giving anything to a few subjects then a ruler will be successful. He is basically saying that if a majority of people are happy then a ruler will have done his job successfully. I am in full disagreement with Machiavelli on this subject. I feel that since a ruler must be truly generous and not jus appear so, then the people who need help the most, like the poor, should receive help. People shouldn’t only receive good treatment if they can help the ruler in some way. Being a ruler is not easy but it should be the intent of the ruler to help all people regardless of the benefits that they can return to the ruler. In conclusion, I’m in disagreement with almost all of Machiavelli’s ideas on government. Although they may be successful, most of them are highly immoral. There’s always more than one way to do something. A government can still be successful with a generous and honest ruler. Obviously different methods than what Machiavelli proposed would be need but it’s not impossible by any means. If Machiavelli’s ideas were put in place by a ruler they would probably work out for five or ten years but eventually people will realize that their leader is corrupt. Once people get sick of this corrupt man the one time leader will either be killed by the people he oppressed or chased out of the country. Machiavelli’s ideas are original and may work, but they should never but put into action.