Virtue is Power in The Prince - Essay Example

Virtue is Power in “The Prince” 6 September Virtue is Power in “The Prince” “The Prince,” since it was published in 1532,has been the product of numerous political and philosophical analyses and debates. As a political treatise, it both enjoyed respect and received condemnation. The term “Machiavellian,” in particular, has since been marred with negativity because it asserted the argument that Machiavelli strongly believed that the ends will always justify the means. Several writers, such as Ledeen (2010) and Cave (2002), however, stressed that Machiavelli did not directly espouse such an ends-justify-all-means directive, without clarifying the ability of leaders to remain virtuous at all times. This essay explores how Machiavelli responded to other writers that wrote on the same topics, how his emphasis on virtues affected his literary form, style, and content, and what current society can learn from his ideas and beliefs. In “The Prince,” Machiavelli argued that virtuous leaders are the best leaders, because they know how to impose power due to their popularity, they can make tough but appropriate choices, and their virtues will help them balance reason and persuasion in ruling their principalities. Machiavelli stressed that virtuous leaders are the best leaders, because the former knows how to establish the “right” relationship with their people. Ledeen (2010) emphasized this point when he wrote: “Without virtue, power is simply the use of force to impose the leaders will on his subjects or followers” (p.1). Force alone, however, is not enough to be “followed” and only having virtues can establish lasting power. Machiavelli noted the importance, nevertheless, of using measured “force” to establish and protect leadership: “A prince ought to have no other aim or thought, nor select anything else for his study, than war and its rules and discipline” since “…it is of such force that it not only upholds those who are born princes, but it often enables men to rise from a private station to that rank” (Chapter 9). Still, force should be based on the known virtues of the people. Several writers also espoused that leaders should be virtuous. Virtue is also at the center of God’s actions in “Paradise Lost.” Milton described the evils of Satan, and yet God, being omnipresent, prepared his Son to redeem humanity from their sins. God said: “God shall be All in All. But all ye Gods,/Adore him, who to compass all this dies,/Adore the Son, and honour him as mee” (3.341-343). He lent his authority to his Son, who will save humanity from their descent to Earth and its tortures. This poem presents a good example of a virtuous leader who wants to preserve the “goodness” of his subordinates by leading a life of virtue. de Montaigne argued that virtues lie in everyday actions and this indicates that leaders must also strive to be virtuous in their everyday decisions in life: “…that to make a right judgment of a man, you are chiefly to pry into his common actions, and surprise him in his everyday habit” (Chapter XXIX). These authors generally believed that people must seek to be virtuous, even when they have evil in their nature. More so, leaders must rise beyond their evil and choose to act and lead virtuously, or else they will lose power. Machiavelli also contended that virtuous leaders are the best leaders, because they make tough but appropriate choices. Ledeen (2010) noted that Machiavelli did not want fickle-minded leaders. Using power should not be “arbitrary, any more than the decisions of a commanding officer on the battlefield” (Ledeen, 2010, p.2). Leaders will have to make unpopular decisions, but they can be argued as “right” because they protected the welfare of the state. Machiavelli said: “What makes [a leader] despised is being considered changeable, frivolous, effeminate, cowardly, irresolute; [a leader] must strive to make everyone recognize in his actions greatness, spirit, dignity and strength.” God also made strong decisions in “Paradise Lost.” Even when He loved his angels, he decided to put them in a place of darkness called chaos to suffer their transgressions of wanting to be Gods. In this chaos, Satan thought: “The mind is its own place, and in it self/Can make a Heavn of Hell, a Hell of Heavn” (Milton 1.254-255). Indeed, in this place of Chaos, the more that Satan’s mind brewed over in dissent for his punishment. For him, the only respite is revenge. God must have seen this coming too, but He decided to focus on humanity instead. It is an action that can be considered as making another tough decision against His enemies. In addition, Machiavelli’s emphasis on the power of virtue and what it implicates affected the symbolisms he used and the importance of the ends over the means. Machiavelli underscored that a prince can rise to power by thinking and acting like a fox and a lion and so he used the treatise as the right form of exploring his propositions and ideas about power. A treatise contains numerous arguments and descriptions, which Machiavelli amply used to strengthen his ideas about what a strong leadership entailed. Furthermore, his rhetorical style balances pathos, ethos, and logos appeals. By example, he wrote in ways that will stress that good and successful leaders also balance integrity, passion, and logic to make popular and virtuous decisions. They should be cunning, but not cruel; they can be feared, but not entirely hated by their people. In addition, Machiavelli’s emphasis on virtues led to his belief in the two important factors of effective political leadership: virtu and fortuna. Virtu pertains to the princes abilities of behaving like a lion and a fox; fortuna pertains to the uncertainty of fortune. Machiavelli said that a prince: “ought to choose the fox and the lion; because the lion cannot defend himself against snares and the fox cannot defend himself against wolves.” He pointed out that a prince should be sly and ruthless and he should be willing to utilize trickery and violence, when the circumstances demand it, but not to the level that Antoninus has. Machiavelli gave the example of Antoninus, who was a famous man and whose outstanding qualities people admired, including his army. Machiavelli underscored, however, that Antoninus’ atrocities and murders made people hate and fear him too much: “He became hated by the whole world, and also feared by those he had around him, to such an extent that he was murdered in the midst of his army by a centurion.” Being a strong lion is not enough, because being cunning entails balancing what it means to be feared and be popular to people. Popular leaders know how to avoid being hated too. Some scholars focus too much on Machiavelli’s idea of using violent means when needed, when they forget that he also advocated against making too unpopular decisions. Cave (2002) stressed that people have misunderstood Machiavelli if they believe that the latter commended brutal and immoral means to end outcomes. Cave emphasized that the welfare of the state is the final outcome of all means and if this is the case, the virtues of a good leader remains more important than the means to their ends: “[Machiavelli] speaks of maintaining power, of glory and posthumous fame; but these are essentially intertwined with the state - that is, the citizens - flourishing.” Machiavelli remained the statesman that he is and commended princes who promoted their people’s interests: “A prince ought also to show himself a patron of ability...he should encourage his citizens to practise their callings peaceably, both in commerce and agriculture...” For Machiavelli, a strong prince knows that he needs a strong state to rule long, and a strong state is made of working and developing individuals. de Montaigne also stressed the importance of moderation in virtues. In “Chapter XXIX-Of Moderation,” he argued that excess in virtues can lead to incorrect behaviors: “… we may grasp virtue so that it becomes vicious, if we embrace it too stringently and with too violent a desire.” Popular leaders know how to balance different factors in generating virtuous outcomes. Machiavelli also believed that popular leaders have virtues that will help them balance reason and persuasion in ruling their principalities. On the one hand, Machiavelli asserted that if the prince wants loyal subjects who would support his authority, it is better to be feared, because “soft” leaders should expect subsequent uprisings: “[A prince] ought not to mind the reproach of cruelty; because with a few examples he will be more merciful than those who, through too much mercy, allow disorders to arise, from which follow murders or robberies.” On the other hand, Machiavelli stated that princes should not endeavor to be hated. God also made a virtuous decision in “Paradise Lost” when he did not subject Satan and his minions to death. The indefinite existence in chaos seems a great deal kinder than death. Hence, similar writers also espoused the need to balance logic and persuasion in making the right decisions. Current society should learn from “The Prince” that virtue remains the foundation of power, not the use of illegal, immoral, or unethical means. Virtuous leaders, after all, are popular leaders and being hated for extreme means cannot constantly result to long-term popularity and without this popularity, people will revolt and expel their leaders. Machiavelli said: “…every prince ought to desire to be considered clement and not cruel. Nevertheless he ought to take care not to misuse this clemency.” This statement alone bears the value of virtues in leadership. Machiavelli, at present, as a consultant to President Bush, would not ask the latter to nuke all enemies and their protectors, because the end of terrorism will justify all means. Instead, Machiavelli will also consider other non-violent or cruel means, even negotiation, if that will serve greater means and reinforce virtues. After all, he also believed in changing fortunes. What will become of the U.S. if it kept on acting like a lion, and the time comes that it has weakened economically and politically? Negotiations are also important in making the right political decisions. In Book XI of “Paradise Lost,” Jesus interceded in behalf of humanity in an act of clemency. He said: “Accept me, and in mee from these receave/The smell of peace toward Mankinde, let him live/Before thee reconcild, at least his days” (Minton 11.37-39). This is a good literary example of showing kindness and benevolence, no matter how vile someone has been. Thus, current society should remember that no, not all ends can justify their means, because in the end, a leader should also rule with his/her heart and mind too. References Cave, P. (2002). Niccolo Machiavelli. The Philosopher’s Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.philosophers.co.uk/cafe/phil_aug2002.htm de Montaigne, M. Essays. Ledeen, M. A. (2010, May5). Winner takes all. Forbes.com. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/2010/05/04/machiavelli-management-power-leadership-careers-ledeen.html Machiavelli, N. The prince. Milton, J. Paradise lost. Read More