Political Thinker: Niccolo Machiavelli - Term Paper Example

? Niccolo Machiavelli Insert Semester Born on the third day of May 1469, Niccolo Machiavelli grew to be one of the most celebrated public figure of his time. Niccolo Machiavelli was concerned with politics, history, diplomacy, philosophy and ethics. The great writer from Florence in Italy has variously been defined as one of the most controversial politicians of all time. Niccolo Machiavelli is thought to be a mysterious political figure in the sense that he, at no time seemed to practice that which he preached. Niccolo Machiavelli taught people quite a good number of ethical principles. His were principles that many people interpreted differently. While the man was good and; indeed, intended good for the general public, he did not seem to advocate for public welfare. His political tactics remained mysterious to many of his opponents. Today, Niccolo Machiavelli is recognized as one of the most significant founders of political science (Belliotti, 2009). Arguably, Niccolo Machiavelli contributed a great deal to the principles underlying political science. Through his writings, Niccolo Machiavelli aired his ideas of good leadership. His ideas revolved around politics and general governance. This paper seeks to explain the various principles and philosophies taught by Niccolo Machiavelli in his works. The paper endeavors to explain the assumptions behind his political philosophy as brought out in such landmark works as The Prince. Niccolo Machiavelli, being an accomplished writer of his time, is known for his landmark book referred to as the prince. Considering that he wrote the book immediately after realizing he was holding no public office, it is feasible to conclude that the work was a message to all those holding power as at then. The book, which uses an analogical approach, has been described as a ridicule of the administration of the day. In this masterpiece writing, Niccolo Machiavelli uses a fictional prince to explain the qualities of a perfect leader. From his writings, it is worth concluding that Niccolo Machiavelli took a manipulative and extreme dictatorial approach to political ideology (Falco, 2004). According to the writings in the book, Niccolo Machiavelli emphasizes on realism and says that idealism amounts to wishful thinking. Even so, Niccolo Machiavelli argues that the most salient thing in any undertaking is the outcome. According to the great thinker, Plato’s assumption that idealism existed was unfounded and unrealistic. As such, the political scientist argues that whichever means a leader uses to achieve an objective that is in the highest interest of the general public is as justified as any ideal method. The assumptions on which Niccolo Machiavelli constructs his system According to most political scientists, anything described as Machiavellian is manipulative and excessively dictatorial. The explanation behind this is the fact that most of the assumptions on which Niccolo Machiavelli based his reasoning were malicious and crooked. The first assumption upon which the political writer based his system has been summarized as: the means is justified by the end. According to Niccolo Machiavelli, the way in which one elects to execute something does not matter much as long as the party achieves his aim. Many political thinkers have described this as the cruelest statement ever to be made by a political figure that was considered as a humanist and activist. In light of this assumption Niccolo Machiavelli justifies lying (Belliotti, 2009). He says that lying is perfectly permissible if such lies will yield satisfaction to the majority. According to this assumption, a leader should use any means necessary as the circumstances may dictate, to arrive at a predetermined objective. For as long as that objective has been achieved, the means is justified. This presumption has been criticized as being overly subjective and pro-evil. Niccolo Machiavelli held the view that a leader was justified in doing wrong for the sake of the state. This explains his utilitarianism approach to political issues. The political thinker’s principles pointed to the fact that, a thing was judged as right or wrong, depending on the effect it had on the majority. In simple words, Niccolo Machiavelli’s argument was that the suffering of the minority was justified as long as such suffering is directly related to the gain of the majority. This has been criticized by those philosophers that uphold the principle of absolute truth. According to the principle of absolute truth, something that is termed as wrong, is wrong and cannot be justifiable under any circumstance. As such, if telling a lie is wrong, it remains wrong, the intention of the liar notwithstanding. Machiavelli refuted absolute truth as being hypothetical an extremely unrealistic. According to Niccolo Machiavelli, such wrongs as lying were inevitable in reality. Lying was; hence, justifiable provided such wrong was done for a justified cause. Another assumption on which Machiavelli’s system is constructed is the principle of moral relativism. The great philosopher explains this is straightforward terms as: stealing drugs for the sake of saving the life of an individual suffering a fatal infirmity was justified since the smaller evil was done for the greater good. In other words, the pain of being stolen from cannot be compared to the pain of losing a loved one (Machiavelli et al, 1988). This, Niccolo Machiavelli explains, is the reasoning behind the justification of some evils. He says that something qualifies as good or evil, and justifiable or irrational, depending on the circumstances that lead to such a thing. Niccolo Machiavelli believed that there was nothing greater than the power and will of the people. This is the main reason that he argued that whatever the politicians did was justified as long as it was in accordance with the desire of the people. Niccolo Machiavelli as well held the assumption that it was better and easier for a leader to appear virtuous than to be virtuous. In his book, The Prince, the great political writer and humanist describes the perfect prince as one that appears good to the people even when he is not at all good. This, he says creates a deceitful image that popularizes the leader. In the same book, Niccolo Machiavelli describes the perfect leader as one that is more feared than loved. According to the political scientist, fear commands respect. People will not respect a leader that they do not fear. Respect does not come out of liking, but rather out of terror. It is for this reason that Niccolo Machiavelli portrays himself as an undesirable thinker. Even so, he justifies himself, saying that love is only associated with respect in an ideal world. In the real world, one ought to use some degree of force so as to create some fear in the subjects. One other famous assumption held by the political guru is the belief that religion was manmade. The writer that was a prominent critic of Christianity argued that such a religion was based on idealism – something that was simply impossible in a world where politics were part of society. Niccolo Machiavelli further argued that the principles of Christianity were impracticable in a world where competition was the determinant of success and failure. How the assumptions of Niccolo Machiavelli lead to unsettling views The assumption that the end rationalizes the means is the most disturbing of all the assumptions. The assumption causes troubling ideas in the sense that it creates tension. People wonder what could have been the trend if such a principle was to govern the ascension to power. Assuming that the end justifies the means makes legitimate such evil acts as the hijacking of power or the stealing of votes to become the president. The assumption makes people wonder if one would be justified to kill his opponent so as to rise to power. The assumption is not applicable, especially in the world of politics, where selfish interests can cause an individual to kill or use malicious propaganda in gaining authority and control (Belliotti, 2009).. This assumption is associated with unfair competitions and extreme capitalistic tendencies. If this assumption was to take full force in society, unfair competition for the resources would arise, as the legitimate ways of gaining wealth would be replaced by unscrupulous means, which would be justified in the long run. This assumption, therefore, creates worrying views among the people in society, especially the poor and the weak. The assumption that religion is manmade and that it is not worth observing is one of the most socially unjustified presumptions. Religion plays a paramount role in society. It is a religion that forms the foundation of ethics upon which social behavior and conduct are evaluated. In Christian societies for instance, believers know that it is incorrect to kill just because the Bible describes the murder as wrong (Lahtinen et al, 2009). Refuting such religious ethics in a rational society is equal to moral corruption. It is characteristic of any society to consider the counsel of such a prominent public figure as Niccolo Machiavelli. It, therefore, creates much worry where and when a political figure of his cadre refutes religion. Additionally this may cause unethical conducts in society. The probability that people will usually misinterpret the words of a philosopher is high. It is for this reason that the complicated views of Niccolo Machiavelli are likely to cause troubling interpretations among the population. Such assumptions as the one stating that force is necessary in maintaining good and effective leadership among the people. Rationally the use of force to maintain or gain power is among the most unjustified acts. In the modern world, the use of force to take power, amounts to a crime against humanity is punishable at the international criminal court. Whether the assumption was to be analyzed today or back in the days of Niccolo Machiavelli, it would still be a cause of troubling ideas since force is against democracy. Democratic processes are debatably the most civilized ways of establishing a government. Niccolo Machiavelli’s idea of using force is not in line with the good governance. Just like all other assumptions, this one is likely to bring about troubling views. Defending Niccolo Machiavelli views It may not seem like a valid idea to support the controversial views of Niccolo Machiavelli. Even so, analyzing the presumptions from a real world point of view, it is worth noting that the views of the political thinker are somewhat justifiable. Considering that Niccolo Machiavelli was a proponent of realism, the views are justifiable. Rationally, his assumption of moral relativism is a justifiable idea considering that absolute truth does not and cannot survive in the actual world (Machiavelli, & Marriott, 2008). For instance, lying is wrong. If people were to go by the provisions of absolute truth, everyone in the world would have been said to have done a grave wrong. At some point in life, people have to lie. People tell lies so as to survive some dangerous situations. As such, Niccolo Machiavelli’s principle of moral relativism and situational dynamism are justifiable. The assumptions relating to religion are the most justifiable presumptions. This is because; indeed, the religious beliefs are purely based on absolute truth. As explained above, absolute truth is a concept of idealism and cannot work in the real world. Additionally, the origins of the religious principles cannot be verified. The beliefs that the religious doctrines were issued to man by the Supreme Being are not verifiable and cannot be sufficiently substantiated. Niccolo Machiavelli’s presumption that a leader ought to use some degree of force so as to command loyalty, obedience and respect, is justified in the sense that force need not be physical force. Arguably, the force of the law is the strongest force in a social setting. It is valid, then, to believe in and support the view that using force in leadership is highly recommended. However, it is imperative to mention that using physical force on the subjects is unjustified as it is a way of abusing human integrity. References Belliotti, R. A. (2009). Niccolo? Machiavelli: the laughing lion and the strutting fox. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Falco, M. J. (2004). Feminist interpretations of Niccolo? Machiavelli. University Park, Pa.: Pennsylvania State University Press. Lahtinen, M., Griffiths, G., & Ko?lhi, K. (2009). Politics and philosophy Niccolo Machiavelli and Louis Althusser's aleatory materialism. Leiden: Brill. Machiavelli, N., Skinner, Q., & Price, R. (1988). Machiavelli: the prince. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Machiavelli, N., & Marriott, W. K. (2008). Machiavelli's the prince. New York, NY: Sterling. Read More