Incompatibility of Political and Moral Lives by Machiavelli - Coursework Example

Name: Date: Institution: Incompatibility of political and moral lives Machiavelli was a political writer born in the year 1469. He was an Italian statesman who served as a defense secretary. In his work that he published after he retired in 1513 known as “The Prince”, he outlines the way in which political power is obtained and how the politicians should maintain it. This is a true argument, in most countries; political leaders will defend their political supporters from attack by their political rivals for being involved evil acts such as bribery voters, involved in corruptions, discrimination, among other immoral acts. Machiavelli was therefore right in his argument. According to Machiavelli, political power at times does not obey the rules of morality, culture, and religion (Denzin, 2012 p. 83). According to the philosophy of morality, it states the importance of staying away from evils and always appreciates the best acts. This can be made via creating awareness to the people’s mind and describing what one need to/ ought not to do. Machiavelli in his work, however, explains that the acts viewed as evil according to the morality or regions view may have a different interpretation in politics. This is to ensure that the interests of the people and the way of governing. In this argument, Machiavelli was right. This is because, in the political field, there are times where public interests have to be considered in order for those in power to retain their position. For instance, it is immoral to lie. However, for leaders to retain their position they are to lie to the people as the lobby for votes. The political leaders are also to consider the interest of the majority in the state during decision-making. In the present world, for instance, people have been discriminated in terms of race, and gender. A good example is in America where people are deported to their countries based on their religion. This is not morally upright. However, in serving the interest of the state, it is a relevant move. It is difficult for an individual who lives a political life to embrace a moral life. This paper will therefore, analyze the incompatibility of political and moral lives as outlined by Machiavelli (Fraser, 2009 p. 73). Machiavelli also argues that it is not good for a state to rely on people’s view on morality since human nature is inconsistent (Park, & Shin, 2006 p. 345). The politician will, therefore, experience a hard time to meet the objectives and strategies set within the state. It is, therefore, important that at a time to apply forces in order to achieve some set objectives. People’s interest keeps on changing from time to time. The country, on the other hand, requires that the citizens should remain united for a developmental purpose. The prince, at such a point, may not be generous enough to sustain every single citizen’s fickle desire instead; he/she should focus on making a strong united and safe nation. This support, Machiavelli’s argument in that, it applies forces where necessary. A country where the opposition is too tough and opposes every single developmental agenda, the prince should not always ask for a chance of negotiation (Taureck, 2006 p.54). This is because the governmental opposition is the alternative to the sitting government. In such a situation, the political leaders are made to be ruthless to the opposition and at times such leaders are assassinated (Sangiovanni, 2008 p. 140). According to the philosophy of morality and religion, assassination is evil. However, according to political view, assassination enables the government to operate smoothly with a minimum objection to the governmental agendas. A famous philosopher; Thomas Aquinas explained the importance of incorporating morality in political leadership (Taureck, 2006 p.59). He acknowledged the existence of state power and argued that having morality in the state power, the public will enjoy a peaceful life on earth, the people will have to have good lives, and justice will always be achievable within the country. His key emphasis is that the state should embrace a state power that has a strong foundation of morality. However, Machiavelli explains the truth in politics as a dirty game and also elaborates it that in politics there are no fair-plays. Machiavelli outlines that in real politics, the following are common; wars, blackmails, corruptions, sufferings due to torture, imprisonment among other immoral acts. Machiavelli argument is based on truth and reality in politics. In most of the states, corruption is not a new terminology and particularly the developing countries. In reality, political leaders will use their position and power to influence their followers by blackmailing them (Denzin, 2012 p.85). This is evident in many countries where the head of state will influence the members of parliament to pass a bill that faces a strong opposition from religious leaders. However, the bill is passed in the national assembly since the political leaders have been blackmailed or bribed. Machiavelli was therefore right in his argument. Machiavelli argues that there is the time that political leaders should consider clemency and cruelty. The leaders are supposed to decide on whether they should be loved or feared by his/her subjects. According to Machiavelli, it would be better for a leader to be feared than to be loved as long as he/she is able to keep his subjects united. The choice of being cruel rather than being loved is to minimize the level of dependency of the prince on other political leaders who may, in turn, overthrow the government or take over the state power. However, Machiavelli elaborates on the question of cruelty that, it should be applied once in a while and should not be persistent. If it becomes persistent, there is a possibility of losing the state power. Being cruel is morally unacceptable. However, it is a good tool in politics. This argument by Machiavelli is a clear reflection of the present system of government where leaders at the time are more aggressive and cruel. However, with time they become friendly to their subjects. The subjects after sometimes will forget the cruelty and continue to support their leaders. For instance king Agathocles of Syracuse who was able to become a king through crime. He ordered that all senators be killed and he be installed in power as a king. However, if the cruelty becomes persistent, the subjects will advocate for a revolution. However, as long as the prince is feared he/ she should as much as possible avoid to be hated by the citizens. Cruelty contradicts to the philosophy of morality and religion. According to the law of morality, one should not be cruel at any given time. However, in politics cruelty is at times a good tool to retain state power as long as it is not persistent. Machiavelli also focuses on the words of a ruler. He explains that rulers should be keen when it comes to word selection when they make their speech. He also explains that the leaders should use the following methods of fighting; force or law. Using law at times may not be effective. There are times when the law becomes too lenient and may hinder the ruler from accomplishing his missions and achieving the set goals for a nation. This is where the ruler is advised to apply forces. It should also be understood that leaders have more enemies than friends. Their enemies will pay attention and analyzed every single word they make. This acts as a trap to their achievement. In such a case, the leader should develop a fox nature, enabling them to identify traps set for them. They should also develop lion’s nature making them to be brave and have the ability to scare away their enemies. In this argument, Machiavelli argued that rulers should not any point honor their words they said in the past in case such words are in a position to disadvantage them or doing them more harm than good. According to the philosophy or morality, one should honor his/her words regardless of the situation. Politically, this philosophy does not work. It is true that the present rulers do not honor their words as long as they would interfere with his mission of retaining the state power (Gal, 2005 p.33). Machiavelli also advocates for flexibility of a ruler. The ruler should always pretend to be good, kind, merciful, loyal, religious and honest this is a technique that would enable them to win their hearts and trust making them to retain the political power (Gal, 2005 p.30). However, the Prince should consider cutting free of these virtues at some relevant moments. Leaders should always sympathize with their subjects in time of crises. They should celebrate with their subjects in religious ceremonies; they should also be involved in fund raising to assist the needy. However, there are times when they are supposed to have limitations to these virtues and are involved in immoral and evil acts such as assassination, corruption, blackmailing, and discrimination. Machiavelli also contradicts to the principles of moral norms. According to the philosophy of morality and religion, and the individual is expected to follow the moral norms in order to avoid the evils of the society. This would ensure that people live in harmony and that the level of conflict within the country is minimized. However, according to Machiavelli, politically this has a different understanding and interpretation. The political leader is expected to violate such moral norms in case they are required by the situation to do so. If a ruler makes a decision that violates such moral norms, will be charged with a serious crime in case he is judged by the codes of religion. However, for the statement to retain and expand the political power, they are then required to be guided by their political life and will that is beyond their morality. This is an indication that the political leaders will not lay much focus on the moral and religious principles but they will be guided by their own code of conducts that will ensure that they are able to acquire, to expand and retain the state power. This is a true reflection of the world. In the international context, it is true that torture, murder and invent conspiracy are common in the current world political situation. In the moral standpoint view, it would be evil to commit the following; torture, political assassination, and wars. The evils mentioned, however, have been used by the superpowers to ensure that they will remain global dominant in political power. Machiavelli also highlights that even the subjects are not good. The prince is therefore not different from rest of the people. The subjects could either be selfish, egoist, inherently bad, or also treat each other differently in accordance with their moral and religious beliefs. The leaders could therefore not be benefited of trusting their subjects. They should, therefore, follow their own codes and they should be interested in the ends and not the means of acquiring, expanding and retaining the political powers. This is a clear support of Machiavelli’s argument. This is because there is a not a standard measure that will define the nature of a normal human being either the subjects or the rulers. In the two different disciplines, religion and politics the concept of morality and evil in the society would differ (Cohen, 2011 p. 241). This in return would ensure that the politicians are able to meet their expectations. It is recommended that the politicians to understand that they have a role to play in ensuring that the subjects remain united. It is also important to ensure that safety is guaranteed to the governed. Rulers should understand that the political rulers and the religious leaders have different roles to play in the society. This is because what is viewed morally upright in the view of different cultures and religion could have a different interpretation and understanding in the political field. The moral norms according to Plato, Aristotle and Thomas of Aquinas may not be applicable in the field of politics (Cohen, 2011 p. 239). Their principles, however, have been viewed as hypocritical since they do not reflect a true indication of the real politics globally. This can be explained by the fact that many political leaders have been assassinated in order to ensure that the level of opposition is reduced ensuring that the government is able to operate smoothly with less opposition (Creed, DeJordy, & Lok, 2010 p. 1353). The level of corruption and blackmail is common in the political field. The Machiavelli argument is a subject to criticism as an enemy to religion, democracy, and morality. He is also to be considered as the founder and father of strong nation since he focuses on the facts that can make the country have strong leadership ensuring that the country is free from attacks through tight security. In conclusion, morality, religion, and politics have a clear boundary as marked by Machiavelli. In politics, the following are necessary moves; assassination, political torture, blackmailing, being hypocritical and pretense, lying to the citizens, being cruel, and among other evils. However, the mentioned acts in the religion and morality are considered as evils and an individual should try as much as possible to avoid them. The political leaders should always use any means to ensure that they remain dominant in the political power (Gal, 2005 p.30). Their main focus should be the end and not the means in which they will acquire, expand and retain their political power. Politicians should not fully trust their followers; this is because the subjects are also entitled to, bad decision making, selfishness, egoism and other vices. For this reason, therefore, they should be guided by their own principles that will ensure that they are able to remain influential and dominate the state power for long. Machiavelli’s argument that political and moral lives are incompatible was right and remains relevant even in the present political and religious lives. This has been evident where the super power countries have remained global dominant in the political power through wars, assassinations, and violence, acts of conspiracy, and torture (Taureck, 2006 p.55). Morally these acts are unacceptable and are highly condemned by religious leaders. However, the superpower countries have embraced them and that is why they remain to be the world power giants. Unlike in religion, in politics there is no a standard definition of what is good and what is evil. References Cohen, S., 2011. Whose side were we on? The undeclared politics of moral panic theory. Crime, Media, Culture, 7(3), pp.237-243. Creed, W.D., DeJordy, R. and Lok, J., 2010. Being the change: Resolving institutional contradiction through identity work. Academy of management journal, 53(6), pp.1336-1364. Denzin, N.K., 2012. Triangulation 2.0. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(2), pp.80-88. Fraser, N., 2009. Social justice in the age of identity politics. Geographic thought: A praxis perspective, pp.72-91. Gal, S., 2005. Language ideologies compared. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 15(1), pp.23-37. Park, C.M. and Shin, D.C., 2006. Do Asian values deter popular support for democracy in South Korea?. Asian Survey, 46(3), pp.341-361. Sangiovanni, A., 2008. Justice and the Priority of Politics to Morality. Journal of political philosophy, 16(2), pp.137-164. Taureck, R., 2006. Securitization theory and securitization studies. Journal of International Relations and Development, 9(1), pp.53-61. Read More

This paper will therefore, analyze the incompatibility of political and moral lives as outlined by Machiavelli (Fraser, 2009 p. 73). Machiavelli also argues that it is not good for a state to rely on people’s view on morality since human nature is inconsistent (Park, & Shin, 2006 p. 345). The politician will, therefore, experience a hard time to meet the objectives and strategies set within the state. It is, therefore, important that at a time to apply forces in order to achieve some set objectives.

People’s interest keeps on changing from time to time. The country, on the other hand, requires that the citizens should remain united for a developmental purpose. The prince, at such a point, may not be generous enough to sustain every single citizen’s fickle desire instead; he/she should focus on making a strong united and safe nation. This support, Machiavelli’s argument in that, it applies forces where necessary. A country where the opposition is too tough and opposes every single developmental agenda, the prince should not always ask for a chance of negotiation (Taureck, 2006 p.54). This is because the governmental opposition is the alternative to the sitting government.

In such a situation, the political leaders are made to be ruthless to the opposition and at times such leaders are assassinated (Sangiovanni, 2008 p. 140). According to the philosophy of morality and religion, assassination is evil. However, according to political view, assassination enables the government to operate smoothly with a minimum objection to the governmental agendas. A famous philosopher; Thomas Aquinas explained the importance of incorporating morality in political leadership (Taureck, 2006 p.59). He acknowledged the existence of state power and argued that having morality in the state power, the public will enjoy a peaceful life on earth, the people will have to have good lives, and justice will always be achievable within the country.

His key emphasis is that the state should embrace a state power that has a strong foundation of morality. However, Machiavelli explains the truth in politics as a dirty game and also elaborates it that in politics there are no fair-plays. Machiavelli outlines that in real politics, the following are common; wars, blackmails, corruptions, sufferings due to torture, imprisonment among other immoral acts. Machiavelli argument is based on truth and reality in politics. In most of the states, corruption is not a new terminology and particularly the developing countries.

In reality, political leaders will use their position and power to influence their followers by blackmailing them (Denzin, 2012 p.85). This is evident in many countries where the head of state will influence the members of parliament to pass a bill that faces a strong opposition from religious leaders. However, the bill is passed in the national assembly since the political leaders have been blackmailed or bribed. Machiavelli was therefore right in his argument. Machiavelli argues that there is the time that political leaders should consider clemency and cruelty.

The leaders are supposed to decide on whether they should be loved or feared by his/her subjects. According to Machiavelli, it would be better for a leader to be feared than to be loved as long as he/she is able to keep his subjects united. The choice of being cruel rather than being loved is to minimize the level of dependency of the prince on other political leaders who may, in turn, overthrow the government or take over the state power. However, Machiavelli elaborates on the question of cruelty that, it should be applied once in a while and should not be persistent.

If it becomes persistent, there is a possibility of losing the state power. Being cruel is morally unacceptable. However, it is a good tool in politics. This argument by Machiavelli is a clear reflection of the present system of government where leaders at the time are more aggressive and cruel. However, with time they become friendly to their subjects.

Read More