Machiavelli and Morality - Essay Example

Insert Machiavelli and Morality Niccolo Machiavelli’s The Prince is a famous book that has been widely quoted by political philosophers since its publication in the 16th century, and as such it has earned the author’s ideas the Machiavellian adjective. The Prince is an invaluable and interesting assessment of the strategies employed in practical politics. It was written by an individual whose highest position in government was a clerk to the Florence’s second chancery and but one whose ingenuity remain unmatched. The popularity of the work can be linked partly to Machiavelli’s use of satire and partly to his mastery of the ways of life employed by effective rulers of the Renaissance Era West. Machiavelli’s account of the prince was influenced by Cesare Borgia, who employed any strategies in the book, including eliminating his opponents in order to obtain and retain political power. This paper examines whether or not Machiavelli was concerned with morals in the Prince. Annexing Principalities Machiavelli dedicated the first half of the book to assess different kinds of principalities, with examples drawn from both classical and modern history with a view to exposing political strategies that worked for the rulers. In the then political culture, he contends that the prince can only rule over hereditary principalities when he conquers particular principalities of interest or sets up a colony in that territory. This is arguably a case of pure lack of morality on the part of the ruler as he or she would deny the people of the conquered territory of their hard-earned political freedom. As Berlin (1) noted, Machiavelli arguably advocates for expanding the territory to another principality in his advice that the prince must use force and or violence to remove the culture and institutions of influence which the previous prince depended on in that principality. He adds that the amoral, violent way is the only deterrent to a rebellion which might be staged by the remaining elements. Machiavelli proceeds to cite the successes of the Romans as the fruits of this conquest strategy. By failing to criticize the willingness to annex new territories via conquest in addition to his reference to the confrontation that follows such annexations as very normal and ordinary in nature, Machiavelli arguably advocates for amoral political world. To demonstrate his point, he particularly looks at Alexander the Great in positive light as he extends the praise to his foot soldiers whose support enabled him to control the principalities they annexed (Berlin 1). And in justifying the degree of amoral ways of governance, most probably to remain well reasoned, he differentiates between ruling people who had been under the control of a dictator and those who had been previously freer and more autonomous. Machiavelli argues that populations who had been subject to the adversities of absolute power would be more difficult to turn towards a new center of influence, but upon their conquering, their loyalty would be guaranteed by virtue of the existence of the same system of governance which was established by the previous rulers. By contrast, the freer and more autonomous populations would present more challenges governing that conquering (Donadio 1-2). As such an effective conqueror must discard his or her morality and devastate such a principality with violence in order to prevent the subjects’ possible countermoves which might destroy the conqueror. The strategy is arguably an act of loose morals of contemporary political rule. Ecclesiastical weaknesses In The Prince, Machiavelli names several notable conquerors that effectively expanded their territories through violence: these include; Cyrus the Great of Persia, Theseus of Greece, Moses of Israel and Romulus of Rome (Machiavelli 43). He depicts these conquerors as acquiring an additional political constituency through their individual skill and cunning ways. According to Machiavelli, their wins were not the result of the moral divine strength, but their armor. Here he creates inference in his readers’ minds that even prophets can only be successful in their conquests if they are armed and ready to eliminate elements of resistance. In specific, Machiavelli holds King Agothocles of Sicily in high esteem in his reference to him as virtuous despite the fact that he ascended to the position through amoral ways of deceit and violence. He is seen as criticizing political rulers who do not practice amoral as failures and predicts their downfall, because according to him, such rulers are similar to those who ascend to power through the help of other’s violent means. Machiavelli then contends that these rulers may rise to the helm quite easily and lose it the same way (46). On the importance of religion in creating moral rule, Machiavelli delves into the ecclesiastical principalities of the then Catholic Church to establish its strength and ability to hold any substantial power. He considers the Church as a transient power, and argues that unlike despotic powerhouses, the Church has constituencies which it lacks the influence to control. Treatment of the enemy Treatment of dissent also evokes Machiavellian responses in The Prince. Whereas morality advocates for the treatment of dissenters with decorum and kindness, Machiavelli arguably advocates a negative attitude (Berlin 1). He says a ruler should handle his enemies with an iron fist. According to Machiavelli, treating the enemy with nothing short of military power, means the enemy would remain a potent threat and would likely strike back. He adds that a political leader with an effective military does not need to follow ordinary laws. By justifying the use of different categories of arms a leader should have, Machiavelli stimulates inference in the readers’ minds that the prince should kill his political enemies by his own hands or through mercenaries or through proxy. He, however, warns against the use of mercenary power in what can be construed as a show of morality because the agents are discrete, ambitious, disloyal, and cowardly and thus they lack the necessary discipline required to take out the enemy (46). Machiavelli then says the use of mercenaries is similar to dependence upon the influence of others to gain power and thus, the agents might turn back their arms on the conqueror. In addition to what may be seen as the moral of a ruler taking responsibility for his or her actions and remaining committed to certain unchanging principles, Machiavelli warns against hijacking the arms of the enemy or political opponents in this context, by noting that this might return to hurt the prince. Machiavelli then mentions Cesare Borgia, who temporarily sought the services of mercenary forces before turning to his own forces as a successful ruler. Machiavelli also mentions other successful classical leaders such as King David of the Bible, who relied on their individual power to conquer the enemy. In these examples, Machiavelli (69) emphatically argues that a ruler, then, should fight wars by themselves in what can be construed as the morals of effective leadership. The argument then requires that a leader should get his or her hands dirty if they intended to enjoy the prestigious trappings that come with power of the people. Treatment of subjects Machiavelli says that how a ruler handles his subjects is also an important part of his survival strategy (68). On this subject, Machiavelli advocates for superfluous morality in his statement that it might be important for a leader to be seen as practicing some traditional morals, but it is impractical or unimportant to really follow those virtues. The philosopher argues that it might be important to be seen as a generous ruler, but it clearly is not vital to match the perceptions with action because being absolutely generous might clear one’s riches. However, it is possible to be show generosity with the resources annexed from others in the same way Cyrus, Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar treated their unsuspecting suspects to goodies obtained amorally from elsewhere. Conclusion Generally, Machiavelli may be seen as supporting amoral leadership by advocating criminal and other dirty ways of acquiring and obtaining power, but I think that is not what he stands for. Machiavelli basically meant his assessment of politics and leadership to be used as a typical solution to the paradox surrounding the practical acquisition and retaining of political power and influence. As such, his accounts are the result of an accurate mix of experience, reason, and imagination of the modern political strategy in its raw state, rather than a campaign to deviate from political morality. Works Cited Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince. Washington, DC: W. W. Norton & Company, 1992. Berlin, Isaiah. “The Question of Machiavelli: A Special Supplement.” New York Review of Books, 4 Nov. 1971. Web 19 Feb. 2015. < http://www.nybooks.com/> Donadio, Rachel. “Keeper of the Canon.” The New York Times, 8 Jan. 2006. < http://www.nytimes.com/> Read More