Comment for peer 1

Commentfor peer 1

Thisresponse by the student explains the argument by Machiavelli aboutthe qualities of a prince in terms of virtues. The argument by thestudent indicates that Machiavelli holds that a prince must be readyto interact with the people who are not virtuous. While this is atrue argument, Machiavelli does not indicate the fact, as theultimate principle a prince should be following all the time.Instead, Machiavelli argues that the association with the people whoare not virtuous should be done when necessary. This is the reasonwhy Machiavelli argues that muddied hands do not have a goodreputation, and a prince should try to avoid anything that comes withit. In this regard, the argument by the student is valid and relatesto Machiavelli’s assertions about the subject.

Commentfor peer 2

Thestudent presents the definition of being generous in comparison tonot being generous in general terms. The student argues that a personwho is truly generous is not known to be generous does not clearlyrelate to Machiavelli’s argument about the concept of generosity inrelation to the case of the prince. The argument by the student thatbeing generous involves repeated acts of giving is valid asMachiavelli indicates in his argument about the cost of generosity.The student points out the argument by Machiavelli that generositytakes a significant part of a person’s wealth. On the side ofcruelty, the student presents an aspect of Machiavelli’s argumentthat cruelty can be useful in some circumstances. However, thestudent could have explained more about the instances where crueltycan be considered kind.

Commentfor peer 3

Thestudent gives a valid argument by the Machiavelli about a prince’spreferable alternative between being loved of being feared. Thestudent presents the Machiavelli’s argument that it is better for aprince to be feared than to be loved. The student further gives anexplanation as to why Machiavelli asserted that being feared isbetter than being loved. Though the argument by the student, theassertions that fear results to loyalty, an element of the rulingthat is loved by any prince from his subjects. The student furtherpresents a valid case that the people who fear a prince will approachwith loyalty than those who love him. Moreover, the student relatesthe preference for fear to that of cruelty over kindness as argued byMachiavelli. However, the student does not give a Machiavelli’sargument that fear is preferred because the prince cannot promotefear and love simultaneously.

Commentfor peer 4

Thestudent focuses the response on the traits of CesareBorgia as a prince and the position of his rule. While thisdescription relates to Cesare Borgia and his use of cruel means, thediscussion deviates from the explanation for his cruelty that turnedto be kindness. Thestudent concentrates on describing the controversial character ofCesareBorgia rather than respond to the question about his cruelty. Theexpenditure of Cesare Borgia and his display of generosity presenthim as a prince who practiced some elements of ruling argued byMachiavelli. However, the cruelty by Cesare Borgia became kindbecause it restored Romagna. Cesare Borgia’s cruelty broughtRomagna to order and brought the people under command. This is theresponse that the student ought to focus on.