Machiavelli: the Moralist

[Lyddiechu]

here is an essay i recently had to write for polisci on machiavelli, since we were recently talking about him in the forum i thought it might be of interest. please post comments!

Analysis of Machiavelli as a non-Christian Moralist

Although Machiavelli notoriously advocated the use of cruelty and deception for conquest, he is best interpreted not as a teacher of evil but as the father of a revolutionary and decidedly humane mode of political thought. In his manual for political success The Prince, Machiavelli urges politicians to abandon traditional Christian doctrine in favor of Realist morality. These discourses on the methods with which a politician must manipulate allies and decisively annihilate enemies paint Machiavelli as a theorist with little regard for the human condition. However, Machiavelli argues that the obligation of the sovereign is to reduce cruelty at all costs. His seemingly harsh creed “the ends justify the means,” if properly utilized, leads to the most moral of all ends, peace and stability for mankind.
If a nation’s stability is the most important factor in preventing bloodshed and strife, then one must exercise strict control over the state to maintain the peace. A prince can only achieve said control if he acknowledges the true motivation of humanity; self-interest. Machiavelli promotes a policy of “cruelty well used” when dealing with the inhabitants of a state and their egoistic nature. Humans are too fickle for a prince to rely on their love, especially when he is their conqueror. Instead he must be feared and respected, yet at all costs never despised. Machiavelli’s firm yet ultimately humane method of handling the realities of humanity is best exhibited in his advice for controlling new conquests. He states when a prince first comes to power, there are three things he must do to hold his conquests; “first, ruin them; second, go there to live personally; third, let them live by their laws, taking tribute from them and creating with them an oligarchical state which keeps them friendly to you.” (20) Taken at face value, this is an incredibly brutal way of governing. Yet a closer reading into Harvey Mansfield’s translation of The Prince reveals the logic with which Machiavelli is able to both successfully conquer and simultaneously preserve morality. Machiavelli defines two kinds of men in conquered lands, the majority which remain unhurt and the minority which is ruined in order to appease the former. He maintains that “Those whom [the Prince] offends, since they remain dispersed and poor, can never harm him, while all the others.... are afraid to err from fear that what happened to the despoiled might happen to them.” (10) An example is made of the few to “satisfy and stupify” (30) the many, which in turn prevents further strife. Love of property and fear of violent death clearly drive citizens to loyalty and obedience. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the prince to utilize these to keep order and peace in his state.
Machiavelli argues that Christian morality always leads to an advantage for one’s enemies. Mercy, forgiveness, and hesitance in dealing with an opponent given one’s enemy time to regroup and strike, causing the chaos and bloodshed one hoped to avoid by being “moral” in the first place. A wise politician strikes quickly and judiciously, treating the enemy as if it were a disease, for, as Machiavelli states; “when one recognizes from afar the evils that arise in a state... they are soon healed; but when they are left to grow because they were not recognized... there is no longer any remedy for them.” (12) Such decisive and merciless force requires a stronger stomach for cruelty than most Christian politicians possess. However, Machiavelli makes an admirable case for the use of violence; “[Cruelties] can be called well used (if it is permissible to speak well of evil) that are done at a stroke, out of necessity to secure oneself, and then are not persisted in but are turned to as much utility for the subjects as one can.” (37) He then warns sovereigns that these cruelties must be committed swiftly and powerfully so violence may be avoided in the future, a most crucial aspect of maintaining Machiavellian morality.
In Chapter XV of The Prince, Machiavelli presents political deception as another art which princes must master in order to maintain their state. He cautions that it is impossible to successfully govern a state with idealist principles; “For it is so far from how one lives to how one should live that he who lets go of what is done for what should be done learns his ruin rather than his preservation.” (61) If one legitimately cares for the well being of the political community, one will skillfully manipulate politics without the hindrance of morality. The nature of politics requires both established and aspiring sovereigns to build their foundations on low ground abandoning all idealism in the process. The animal natures of the fox and the lion (brute force and cunning) must be mastered and balanced in order to reckon with the base forces that govern politics. Humanity is guided by self-interest in the political arena just as it is in the rest of life. Machiavelli advises that a politician harness this most basic instinct and use it to his advantage. Ambition would counter ambition, faction would counter faction, ideally leaving the political community with a harmonious balance of powers.
Machiavelli’s final argument in The Prince is both a plea for the salvation of Italy and a valuable warning against apathy to all entangled in politics. Again he tries to dissuade politicians from falling victim to the passivity of Christianity. He contends that all is not preordained in the world and a wise ruler must be ready to face all that Fortuna cares to throw at him. Where preventive measures have not been made, misfortune is sure to strike. Machiavelli demands that impetuous and ferocious action is absolutely necessary in dealing with fortune, yet he cautions against wild hubris. Although it is traditionally immoral to tamper with God or Fortuna’s plans, Machiavellian morality would gladly break with the supernatural to preserve the political community which it has a responsibility to protect.

[Lyddiechu]

History has often validated Machiavelli’s theory that all humans are governed purely by self-interest. However, this maxim which spawned an ingenious guide to political success failed to confront the massive problem of religious and ideological fanaticism. The only possible solution Machiavelli’s writing suggests would require violence to an extent that no modern politician would ever dare to undertake. Yet it is possible that we need to consider pure Machiavellian morality in light of the desperate political situation; “Here there is great justice: for war is just to whom it is necessary, and arms are pious when there is no hope but in arms.” (103)

[JudgeDredd]

you make it hard to spot the difference between a non-Christian Moralist and a Christian one.

I think that government could harness more diverse pockets of idealism, with a scattering of liberalism, and a hint of chaos, layered with a technological morality. It's like some business is very straight-laced suits and commerce, while other businesses pander to the common needs of real citizens (sex drugs and techno raves) while the government, for the most part, currently controls the layer of technological morality.

It's the latter (government agengies) that need to be privatised, not just electric and water and such. Government funding of an authorative organisations makes the "them and us" division, but privatised (with a comprehensive overview of public watchdogs) would give less oportunity for rampant self-interest at a government level which often spews out and affect other countries.

[Lyddiechu]

At 10/5/03 09:46 PM, Judge_Dredd wrote: you make it hard to spot the difference between a non-Christian Moralist and a Christian one.

is that a compliment or a criticism? it could be taken as both.. i make it hard to spot either because i did a bad job writing the essay, or i make it hard to spot because i did a good job arguing machiavelli's morality and making it possibly appeal to christians?

[JudgeDredd]

i left it a little obscure, maybe because your essay has done similar.

take this paragraph;

At 10/5/03 09:11 PM, Lyddiechu wrote:

"Machiavelli argues that Christian morality always leads to an advantage for one’s enemies. Mercy, forgiveness, and hesitance in dealing with an opponent given one’s enemy time to regroup and strike, causing the chaos and bloodshed one hoped to avoid by being “moral” in the first place. A wise politician strikes quickly and judiciously, treating the enemy as if it were a disease, for, as Machiavelli states; “when one recognizes from afar the evils that arise in a state..."

..when we read this in today context we naturally compare it with pre-9'11 and post-9'11 events.

We know that GW Bush likes to think of himself as some great christian leader, doing God's work, fighting Evil wherever he (Bush) points his finger.
But by our view it might not be God's Will to seek vengence and retribution ..at least the Bible states this quite clearly! Bush doesn't even claim to be following God's direct orders. It's more like the "them and us" but from a hawkish government's priviledged standpoint .."We're the good guys", "We're fighting off evil forces" ..but as Machiavelli states something like; EVIL (to a non-Cristian) is whatever we say is EVIL ..and what we say is EVIL (which suits our purpose becuase WE view ourselves as the GOOD GUYS) ..which means we're reacting out of self-interest ..which can now be labelled "pre-emptive self-preservation".

Put another way. One group's moral beliefs will not always equate to another groups morality standpoint. It does not make either group less or more religious. It's purely an ethical difference, which leads to a greater conflict of interest!
Suddenly the two opposing sides start fighting, each in the name of their personal Gods or belief systems. But what Machiavelli doesn't suggest (as a non-Christian) is that neither side can really claim or proove themselves to be more righteously or more morally superior. This will always be subjective, as it comes down to each personal interpretation or right and wrong, which pretty much always aligns with self-interest anyways.

See, it's hard to describe non-religious beliefs in plain english :-/

[Lyddiechu]

For machiavelli, evil is whatever is against your interests, it has nothing to do with morality. If you read the footnotes and all the annotations in the book you will realize that he had to alter some of his vocabulary to keep from having his book completely and utterly banned by the italian church and therefore ignored by the people he hoped would read it and bring italy back into glory.

I am not trying to say Machiavelli is some great savior of humanity.. but he certainly does have some wonderful ideas for political survival and prosperity if you have a realistic view of the world.

[JudgeDredd]

At 10/7/03 12:07 PM, Lyddiechu wrote: For machiavelli, evil is whatever is against your interests, it has nothing to do with morality.

*turns DAG light on*

so if my interest is in world domination, then evil is anyone who tries to stop me, right?!

[Lyddiechu]

At 10/7/03 10:15 PM, Judge_Dredd wrote:

At 10/7/03 12:07 PM, Lyddiechu wrote: For machiavelli, evil is whatever is against your interests, it has nothing to do with morality.

*turns DAG light on*

so if my interest is in world domination, then evil is anyone who tries to stop me, right?!

well, in your point of view they would be.. and they would only be evil according to machiavelli if your plans for world domination would ultimately be the most beneficial for humanity as a whole.. remember he believed that the ends justified the means.. but the end must be noble nonetheless.