What Do You Think Machiavelli Means by The Ends Justify the Means - Term Paper Example

What do you think Machiavelli means by “the ends justify the means?” In his conception, what are the ends (goals) of politics; what means are necessary and justifiable? When N. Machiavelli necessitates to argue that “the ends justify the means”, he is pertaining to a stately rule by which “the prince”, who appears to possess the attributes of being merciful, faithful, humane, sincere, and religious, governs for the sake of stabilizing the grounds of sovereignty which is perceived as a noble aim, regardless of the means or schemes employed in achieving the latter. For Machiavelli, since the prince is sagacious enough to appear to be good overall at the external, his subjects are deceived at the thought of his seemingly remarkable objective of fortifying the state for the benefit of all. Thus, the people who are motivated by fear rather than any instinct to oppose the prince’s insight are disposed to honor the ends of the ruler however he wishes to pursue his goals through his legitimate power whether by ideal or mischievous political design (Machiavelli). Apparently, it is most suitable to acknowledge that Machiavelli requires a type of leader who fulfils his selfish interest by an “invisible hand” of unintended consequences in which the citizens manage to gain their own advantage by the course of nature despite the prince’s real yet unknown intention of acquiring power to its absolute extent. On behalf of stable princely rule, hence, one may well justify how Machiavelli fits in a “Republican” status though such identity becomes modified as he exhibits the role of a tactician who believes that the greater majority ought to benefit according to the projected ends of state progress. Implicitly, though the prince has nothing to do with this yet he have prudence to show and if the people of the state were to obtain prosperity by coincidence, it should not be permitted to transpire always, only most of the time. In view of the proposition where “the ends justify the means”, Machiavelli likely points out that politics, no matter which paths are taken, good or evil, as maneuvred by the prince must yield to the stability of his government, or more specifically, the foundations upon which his powers rest. Anything or anyone that threatens such ultimate end form materializing the prince is expected to have as far removed from him as possible while in the process of maintaining and expanding the realms of his potentials and authorities altogether. At whatever cost, the deliberate goal of the means is to secure a political power for the prince to enable him to execute tasks toward the favor of satisfying his subsequent desires. The citizens, the ideals, and the rest of the associated concerns may or may not be equivalently impacted by the chief aim as such but their natural or forced agreement is at least necessary so that nothing sets any probable barrier as the prince proceeds to work for the ends much sought after. Once the prince has been able to convince and deceive the citizens that it is truly a noble deed to do everything by virtue of upholding the welfare of the state and strengthening it by all of the available resources, then it must be understood that whatever means that follow with a fully acknowledged end in mind and heart would occur justifiable. As long as the objectives remain intact within people’s trust and respect, this condition shall sustain justice and allowances for means to be carried out in attaining the goals with politics and for which, Machiavelli claims that “there are two methods of fighting, the one by law, the other by force: the first method is that of men, the second of beasts; but as the first method is often insufficient, one must have recourse to the second (Machiavelli).” To this, he further added “it is therefore necessary for a prince to know well how to use both the beast and the man.” One concrete instance to illustrate how this works is a type of political setting generated during the period of cruelty when the notorious Adolf Hitler, being idealistic and egocentric he was with total authority possessed, had assumed a persona that stirred the general public to the height of all anxieties. Despite occasions of psychological imbalance, Hitler may be noted for his remarkable military exploits and knowledge of relevant martial tactics with virtuous traits of nationalism, modesty, and endurance. Indeed, above all sentiments prevailing at the time, he was mostly feared and Machiavelli likewise proposed for the prince to acquire fighting skills since subsequent triumphs through militaristic pursuit enhance courage which is also a very essential characteristic of a prince. A Machiavellian prince lives by the image and behaves cautiously in order to remain in power and this combined nature of lion and fox is also symbolic of the approach used by Hitler in forming and securing control of the Nazi party (Stokes). By initially winning the favor of a large crowd who were drawn to his admirable manner of oration which sought pretentious publicity and propaganda (Stokes) overall, he found his way to earn more followers and influence over political subjects. By then the extent of his ill power reached the capability of funding for the organization, so though there were righteous party members who expressed disapproval of his irrational leadership, they were eventually tamed back by his wicked schemes and cleverness. Here, Hitler quite resembles the princes character further by showing a rather severe attitude toward implementing his crooked principles so that this consistent tendency proceeds to project for him a stronger character that justifies suppression of good and motivation by fear. Similarly, to Machiavelli’s belief: “A prince being thus obliged to know well how to act as a beast must imitate the fox and the lion, for the lion cannot protect himself from traps, and the fox cannot defend himself from wolves ... One must therefore be a fox to recognize traps, and a lion to frighten wolves (Machiavelli).” Consequently, in this context, even as A. Hitler makes a disreputable, or permanently unforgivable, figure of history whose infamous conviction aligns with that of Machiavelli – that if the prince must execute or punish, he must do so right away no matter how ruthlessly, his type of leadership received tremendous support from the Germans who used to find him despicable. Because the “invisible hand” of unintended consequences were at work in his regime, severe economic crisis at the time of the Great Depression came to resolution for, like Machiavelli’s prince, he was not keeping good faith on the actual yet his astuteness blinded many to the notion that it was through the exceeding stability of his rule which brought the nation to circumstances of cure for the economy. Works Cited Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince. Penguin Classics; Oxford World’s Classic Ed., 2004. Stokes, Phil. “A Biography of Adolf Hitler.” Phils World War II Pages. 2010. http://www.secondworldwar.co.uk/ahitler.html. 10 Feb 2011. Read More