I responded the questions and my resulting score is 23. This means that I fairly far Machiavellianism because my score is not close to 50.
I agree with the consequences of this exercise. I read Machiavelli’s The Prince when I studied political theories. The book fairly attracted my attention because Machiavelli is different from other thinkers. I remember that according to Machiavelli, all men are bad, so there must be a person who has power. The person is so strong that he rules the people. Also, I know that Machiavelli sees authority, power and legitimacy as one and the same. What is important for Machiavelli is how these are used to reach one’s goals. I think if there is just one person who is Prince or something, who is the strongest, it is too bad. The strongest person, the wise ruler can do bad things to innocent people by force. I do not mean there mustn’t be powerful people. I just think that there mustn’t be just one powerful person because he or she can use his/her power for bad things. Machiavelli support that political life cannot be governed by a single set of moral or religious absolutes, and that the monarch may sometimes be excused for performing acts of violence and deception that would be ethically indefensible in private life. Maybe, I am too much humanist, but I think using violence is one of the worst things in the world and it is never unacceptable.
Furthermore, Machiavelli was the first modern thinker, maybe. Because before Machiavelli, thinkers were too much religious. Religion is not a bad thing, of course. However, according to me, in the world there mustn’t power of religion because some people can use it and unfortunately some people still use the power of religion.
Finally, when I use power, I never think only logical and pragmatical. I believe that If we use power such as Machiavelli, how we differ from such tyrants as Hitler, Lenin, and Mussolini.