It discourses finally, on the virtue of the faith to the given word, concluding that a prince who follows the scratch this obligation will discover in many occasions that places it in disadvantageous position. Others including Sen. Sherrod Brown, offer their opinions as well. Maquiavel also insists that if a prince to desire to keep its State, will perceive, frequently, how much he is essential and positively advantageous to the use of those vices that the authors humanists advised the princes to prevent whatever the cost. Starting for the avarice, it affirms that this is inevitable if the prince to intend to conserve its joined and loyal subjects. Finally it detaches the value of the fraud and the lie, insisting that ' ' the experience of our time sample that the princes who bigger facts had carried through had been those that had after all given the word with ligeireza, that they had known to be deceptive for the astuteness and that, of accounts, had won of that if they pautaram for the principles of honestidade' ' . Maquiavel is of complete agreement with the authors most traditional how much to the goals that the princes must to aim at. As he himself affirms, the objective of the governor would have to be to keep its done State and to carry through great e, thus, to inhale to the honor, glory and fame. The difference between Maquiavel and its contemporaries is in the nature of the methods that considers adequate to carry through its ends. The starting point of the authors humanists of the time was that, it prince to reach such goals, would have to be certain to follow the norms of the Christian morality, under any circumstance.

Maquiavel, differently, part of the idea that if a prince to virtuously act in all the cases soon will discover how much ' ' it has to suffer, in way to that they are not virtuosos' '. Critical the basic one that Florentine dirige to the thinkers of its time says respect to the fact not to perceive what its to see, defines the quandary that the prince characterizes. According to Florentine, these authors want to have the right to express its admiration for a great conductor of men as it was Anbal. But at the same time they intend to condemn what he became possible its exploits, in special, the desumana cruelty, in which Maquiavel sees the key for the success and the glory of Anbal. The exit of the Florentine one consists of accepting without no reserve that, if a prince will be pledged seriously in keeping its State, will have to resign to the requirements of the Christian virtue. Therefore, the difference between Maquiavel and its contemporaries cannot correctly be evaluated as the difference enters a moral vision of the politics and a conception of the politics that would be divorced the morality. The difference inhabits in two distinct moralities, of what in last analysis if it must make.