The Political Theory of Machiavelli - Essay Example

 The Political Theory of Machiavelli: Two Main Arguments in Its Favor “We can find meaning and reward by serving some higher purpose than ourselves...We all have something to give” (as cited in Wortham, 2012). According to various researchers, in particular Abramson (2009), Machiavelli has earned a very bad reputation: “His very name has entered our language as synonymous with evil” (location 2052). His political philosophy was called Machiavellianism (location 2058). In general, Machiavellianism can be interpreted as a line of conduct in political activities, which is characterized by disregard for the norms of morality to achieve political goals, hypocritical and insidious control and manipulation of others (locations 2058, 2064, 2069). In this regard, this concept admitted the political methods based on cruelty, deceit, dishonesty and hypocrisy. Certainly, such an understanding of the nature of political power could not provide a positive image for Machiavelli. Nevertheless, it makes sense to ask a question about whether it is possible to justify his political concept and see its validity. Following the logic of Abramson, one can find two main arguments in favor of the validity of Machiavelli’s theory. The first argument assumes that Machiavelli considered his theory as useful for those rulers who tried to avoid evil, because he was aware that political activity is always associated with a certain kind of cruelty and violence (location 2085). In turn, the second argument is that the philosopher developed his political concept based on the use of pagan rather than Christian morality (locations 2094 and 2101). As he saw it, in contrast to Christian ethics, pagan morality gave much more opportunities to solve an extremely important political task, namely the unification of Italy (location 2101). In general, the validity of his concept stems from the fact that it was aimed at strengthening the political power in Italy and its unification into a single country able to demonstrate a high economic and social potential. Thus, the aim of the paper is to provide two main arguments in favor of the political theory of Machiavelli. Machiavelli’s Political Theory about the Nature of Political Power As previously noted, the negative attitude towards the political philosophy of Machiavelli is due to the fact that the philosopher justified the use of violence, abuse, lies and deceit to gain the authority of the governor. In his famous work titled The Prince, Machiavelli suggested political leadership based on a number of principles in particular pursuing the aim to eliminate political opponents. One can identify a few basic principles proposed by Machiavelli in this work. Firstly, the philosopher said that the desire to seize power using violence and cruelty is rather natural, because it corresponds to “the nature of the political ambitions” (location 2058). In addition, the successful ruler must learn to pretend to be honest, merciful and humane, because in reality he should not have these qualities. Finally, one of the most important principles of political power lies in the fact that “the ends justifies the means” (location 2069). In this case, the sovereign can use any means to achieve his goal, ignoring the norms and values ​​of human morality since “the ends justifies the means” (location 2069). Despite the immorality of such an approach, it is possible to find the first argument in favor of the validity of Machiavelli’s theory. In particular, the philosopher drew attention to the fact that he developed his theory directly to those politicians who were not scoundrels in the sense in what a figure of Hitler can be considered. Machiavelli hoped that his theory would be useful to those politicians who sought to avoid evil but understood that this is not always possible. In this respect, “nor the can the Hitlers and lesser Hitlers be Machiavellian in the sense of refraining from evil when they can, resorting to it only when they must” (location 2086). Hitler was a cruel tyrant and murderer, and he did not need the recommendations presented by Machiavelli. In fact, Machiavelli’s theory was intended primarily to those who were not familiar with the political sphere in its theoretical part. In principle, the philosopher emphasized the innovative nature of his approach to those of his contemporaries, who tried to avoid doing evil and cruel deeds: “Therefore, it is necessary for a prince, who wishes to maintain himself, to learn how not to be good, and to use this knowledge, and not use it, according to the necessity of the case” (location 2085). Thus, the philosopher only summarized the basic principles of any political power, as in any country, it involves the use of “dirty” methods to achieve one’s goals. Pagan Morality as the Basis of Machiavelli’s Theory In turn, the second argument is even more interesting and compelling. According to Abramson, one needs to understand that in his political philosophy Machiavelli applied not Christian but pagan morality (location 2101). Belief that Machiavelli distinguished between politics and ethics is not correct, because in fact, the philosopher saw the connection between politics and ethics, but he acknowledged pagan ethics. In contrast to Christian ethics, pagan ethics the roots of which can be found in the Roman morality implies that the interests of the individual can be ignored for the sake of the common good. As a result, Machiavelli wrote “within the classical ethical tradition in which sacrifices for the good of the community, rather than causing us to lose out moral way, give us the highest ethical life that human beings can achieve” (location 2104). Machiavelli compared the state of his Christian Italy with pagan Italy that existed during the Roman Republic. He saw that ancient Italy was much more prosperous than modern Italy. As a result, he came to the conclusion about the practical benefits of pagan morality for the unity and power of the country: “He looked upon the dismembered state of his own Christian Florence and the Italy beyond, compared it to the glory that was pagan Rome, and took his stand – without hesitation…” (location 2101). Striving for the political stability and unity of his native Italy, Machiavelli saw sense in the application of the basic principles of pagan morality within the political activities of the Italian leaders. For the sake of the unity of the country, Machiavelli was ready to renounce the Christian values in favor of pagan notions of the common good. As an extremely competent and erudite person, Machiavelli clearly understood that he went against the absolute Christian values stating that the objective cannot justify the means. According to Christian morality, no one has the right to kill other people, because it violates God’s commandments (Bible, Exodus 20:13). However, in all likelihood, given the political situation in Italy which was under the rule of the Medici dynasty the philosopher was forced to justify the principle of the common good. In this respect, violence made sense in cases when it resulted in the achievement of the goal and elimination of all threats. The philosopher called this type of violence the “well-committed violence” that “is more economical in the end” (location 2180). Following the logic of the pagan morality, this type of violence intended to use the most brutal and at the same time effective ways to achieve the common good. Conclusion It has been the purpose of this paper to prove the validity of the political concept of Machiavelli within the social and political terms in which he lived and worked. The analysis makes it possible to find two arguments in favor of its validity from logical and practical points of view. Firstly, the concept of Machiavelli may be justified in the sense that he stated the principles that are the foundation of any political activity. He honestly pointed to the fact that the desire to retain and strengthen the power is always associated with a number of ethical challenges and problems. Anyone who is involved in politics, eventually faces the need to lie, betray and even kill. This is consistent with the nature of the political sphere, which cannot be moral initially. The second argument is even more convincing. The philosopher based his concept not on the Christian but on the pagan morality because he saw it more efficient to solve problems such as the unification of Italy. In turn, the pagan morality presented in Roman culture argued that the interests of the people and even their lives may be sacrificed for the common good of the country. The philosopher saw strengthening the power of the ruling dynasty and the unification of Italy as the common good. References Abramson, J. (2009). The tradition of western political thought. London/Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Bible. Web. 15 Apr. 2015. Wortham, A. (2012). Obama's world of social justice. Mises Institute. Retrieved from Read More