Virtue in Philosophy of Machiavelli - Essay Example

Virtue in Machiavelli's Philosophy To estimate Machiavelli's conception of virtue is undeniably difficult with obscurity, especially in context to two different types of works, namely The Prince and the Discourses. The Prince exhibits the innovative thoughts and ideas but is mainly subjective of the wickedness and tyrannical interests. On the other hand, the Discourses presents a republic theory which itself is virtuous. Both books are in total contrast to each other. The Price is though-provoking, captivating, short, easy, but also equally dangerous and "not virtuous" book. Here, Machiavelli provides recommendations for the princes about learning the policies for how not to be good or virtuous to their friends and colleagues so as to maintain absolute authority. "It is necessary for a prince, wanting to maintain himself, to learn how to be able to be not good and to use this and not use it according to necessity"(Machiavelli 57). He believes that one good man is surely going to suffer among those who are not good. Thus, the virtue of goodness is meaningless for Machiavelli. If a price is imagined to be just as what Machiavelli conceptualizes, he would not be less than a criminally wicked tyrant. On contrast, the Discourses is a good usable book, though being long, nostalgic, and difficult as well. Here, Machiavelli's advices go to not just the rulers but the citizens, social reformers, political leaders, and the founders of republics. The purpose served is to establish and sustain their liberty as well as the avoidance of corruption "unless indeed the goodness of one individual, together with virtue, keeps it free"(Machiavelli xxiv). Improving from the downgraded non-virtuous theme of The Prince, In Discourses, Machiavelli explain that as a new price tends to preserve his principality with glory for a long time-beyond his death-the foundation of a republic is the best approach. "A corrupt city that lives under a prince, can never be turned into a free one, even if that prince is eliminated along with all his line"(Machiavelli xxiv). However, one thing is clear that he devaluates the republics and principalities as imagined by the writers with virtue. And, the reason is that they emphasized on the moral virtue which, according to him, invites ruin; plus they also rejected violence, cruelty, and loss of faith, which are unavoidable and acceptable for the preservation of the principality according to him. And, this is what is objectionable in The Prince where he goes against the morality set by the classical and biblical values with an intention of framing a novel and modern "political" conception of virtue. The new definition of virtue means something that does not prevent the human from first gaining and then maintaining whatever has been gained, especially the authority. However, morality is one of his targeted themes that also include politics at the first place, necessity, fortune, religion, etc. As far as moral values are concerned, he shows his dislikes for the people of his time because, in his views, they were not actually following the "ancient virtue" but instead were content with keeping ancient statues in their homes, and thus honoring and imitating them in that way. The deeds rendered by the ancient rulers and republics were not at all imitated, neither their examples were meaningful to the then political scenario, according to him. In the first preface to the Discourses he talks about correct history knowledge lacked by his time. This suggests that Machiavelli was not against the ancient value; rather, he praises it with an aim of improving it. He was not much concerned about the would-be negative results of his writings and was eager to bring about a "Machiavellian" interpretation of the ancient virtue-along with a new look of the Renaissance in terms of modernity rather than a copy of the past. Machiavelli's virtue is questioned mainly because some of the advices in The Prince-such as cruelty for the sake of the subject-go against the virtue as perceived by the human masses. Also, his politics is separated from the ethics and metaphysics, which is something not virtuous. But, Machiavelli never talks about cruelty without any purpose; rather, the most valid purpose is the security of the state. Why he thinks that way is a subject of his philosophy. Similarly, he condemns being virtuous when you do this only for the sake of virtue itself and nothing else. He also welcomes virtuous deeds when they can fetch some benefits to the state. Generosity in his views might invite ruin. To spend money for the sake of country's defense is good, but continuous generosity will make you run out of money and you will require taxing your people heavily; and this way the people will not like you. Differing from the decent conception of virtue of Aristotle and others, Machiavelli is ready to accept vices of the prince if compensated with benefits, "without which he might hardly save the state; because, if one considers everything well, one will find that something that appears a virtue, if followed, would be his ruin, and that some other thing that appears a vice, if followed, results in his security and well-being" (Machiavelli 58). In one sense, his virtue is that which can bring praise from others, particularly a praise of the prince by the people. For Machiavelli, being good is only meaningful so long as the goodness does not harm the prince. For Aristotle politics were the extension of the ethics. Whereas for Machiavelli politics is essentially different from the ethics; rather, politics for him was just acquiring and maintaining power or authority. For him religion, morality, etc. were far away from politics. This mindset makes him admire only the winners, such as Alexander VI and Julius II who were hated by the Europe for being ungodly popes. In fact, the term "virtue" is taken as more of its Latin sense which is "manly" by Machiavelli; and therefore the sense of virtue is associated to the muscle power or army strength. This is why he describes "fortune is a lady" who can be physically grabbed by the prince and carried away. Those who get this lady as a natural gift while acquiring a principality are likely to lose her soon. "Such princes stand simply upon the will and fortune of whoever conceded it to them, which are two most voluble and unstable things: and they do not know how and they have not the power to hold that rank" (Machiavelli 24-25). If they do not have sufficient muscle power with all loyalty or faithfulness from the army, they will be defeated only during the first bad circumstance. "The states that come right away, like all other things of nature that are born and grow fast, cannot have their roots and connections, so that the first adverse circumstances extinguish them (Machiavelli 24-25).Machiavelli goes to the extent of advocating evil activities to win a principality with the example of Agathocles of Syracuse; "he had all the senators and richest of the people killed by his soldiers. Once they were killed he occupied and held the principality of that city without any civil controversy"(Machiavelli 32-33). The qualities of a ruler according to Machiavelli must include needful fear in the minds of the people for him, and, on the other hand, enough love given to him by the public simultaneously. Here he means that for prevailing fear among the people, a ruler must suppress his personal virtues with acts like cruelty-and thus becoming not good. But, this equally does not mean that he should be hated, leading finally to a threat to the principality. Retaining the support of the public is necessary for him; and this can be achieved by showing virtues such as generosity, religious behavior, no persecution of citizen, etc. In Machiavelli's eyes Cesare Borgia was a good example of a price to be followed because he maintained peace and order in his principality-regardless of his brutality. He says "I will never fear to cite Cesare Borgia and his actions" (Machiavelli 45-46). Sometimes, Machiavelli's behavior seems like that of an army commander who talks about nothing more than war. "A prince must not have any objective nor any thought, nor take up any art, other than the art of war" (Machiavelli 54). As far as a general meaning of virtue is concerned, it can be perceived differently by different people. One meaning is what most of us relate to it-the goodness of human character. The virtue that we associate with great people is another perception. Thirdly, it is something that we permanently link with religion and the holy books. Some other associations connect the virtue with the positive qualities such as skill or ability to perform well, body power in terms of winning an object such as victory in sports or in politics, and utility meaning helping others like a cow that has a virtue of providing milk to us. Thus, the conception of virtue depends upon what you think of a virtue. You cannot praise wicked or ordinary person virtuously. For this you have to compromise with the concept of virtue; and maybe, this is what Machiavelli was trying to do in The Price. Such compromises may be identified from the people's minds, who were and are around us, concerning the past and the present respectively. But, most of them remain confused because of the inability of cognition power. After reading The Prince, many would have favored his conception. Machiavelli was one of them who could compose his ideas in a written language with his literary talent. Machiavellian virtue lies somewhere between the two extreme aspects-right or wrong, moral or immoral, just or unjust, good manners or ill treatment, etc. He put aside all of the morality for the evaluation of political systems and actions; because he thinks it will improved the level of politics. He wanted politics to be something special in itself-away from the ethics and religion. He judges moral values in terms of skills of gaining and sustaining the power. What is obscure more about Machiavellian virtue is that the same author of The Price is also the author of the Discourses, written around the same time, where he recommends republics with ruling out the principalities-"in republics there is greater life, greater hatred, more desire for revenge; the memory of their ancient liberty does not and cannot let them rest" (Machiavelli xxii). Let's have a conclusion that Machiavellian virtue belongs to the Machiavellian philosophy only. Why he was intended to write these books and what their consequential effects have beenup to the present time are the subjects requiring more discussions. Reference: Machiavelli, Niccolo. "Discourses on Livy." Trans. Harvey C. Mansfield and Nathan Tarcov. books.google.com. 29 April 2009 "Machiavelli's The Prince a summary with quotations." emachiavelli.com. 29 April 2009 Laine , Timo. "The concept of virtue in Machiavelli." 29 April 2009 < http://www.timoroso.com/philosophy/writings/print-machiavelli-virtue-2008> Read More