Morals are for Sissies

Please comment and give me honest feedback

Chapter XV: On the Reasons Why Men Are Praised Or Blamed- Especially Princes

Page 42

“For if you look at matters carefully, you will see that something resembling virtue, if you follow it, may be your ruin, while something resembling vice will lead, if you follow it, to your security and well being.”

One reason Machiavelli has been criticized in the last 500 years is his lack of a moral compass. His ideas not only contradict traditional Judeo-Christian morality, they threaten the fundamental doctrine of Western political thought; the idea that everything has a purpose prescribed to it by a single source- a political or supernatural entity- and by obeying that entity humans can ascend to a higher consciousness. One entity Machiavelli indirectly criticizes is the Catholic Church. During his lifetime the Church told its followers by obeying the word of God relayed to them by it, they would gain entrance into Heaven. Morality plays a similar role. It tells people how to live, and by obeying the rules their life gains a greater meaning. Machiavelli rejects this idea. He believes it is not the way one lives that is important, it is what one accomplishes that defines him. This doctrine is more practical than that of religion or morality- it is based on scientific observations and measurements instead of abstract rhetoric. In Chapter XV of The Prince Machiavelli discusses this doctrine by comparing virtue to vice. He argues results are the only thing that matters- the means by which they are achieved is excusable, as long as they create political stability.

Herein lies the goal of Machiavelli’s treatise. His advice is geared towards the benefit of the group rather than that of the individual, and he uses scientific thought to best achieve this goal. That means anything that cannot be proven effective must be eliminated from one’s thoughts including morality, religion and generosity. Conversely anything that process effective, no matter how evil it is should be included in one’s thoughts including cruelty, extortion, bribery and murder. The last four terms are typically called vices, but they are very effective. Machiavelli argues a name is just a name- it means nothing more; actions should be judged by the benefits or detriments they impose upon the public, not by their good or bad connotations.

This scientific attitude is the basis for Machiavelli’s analyses and conclusions. He sees the world as it is, not as he wants it to be. He divorces idealism, morality and God for the sole purpose of creating stable government for the public. His goal is a lofty one, and requires extremes that, even today, are considered reprehensible; but also very effective. He advocates the use of idealism only as a means to not be hated, rather than to create a better world. Machiavelli rejects the idea that humans can change the world- he thinks they can only minimize the suffering in it through the use of scientific principles to analyze effective and ineffective behavior. What is ideal is oftentimes not what is effective, and if our goal is to make a less painful or better world, why should we cling to unproven and ineffective means? This logic is evident throughout The Prince, and although Machiavelli uses many examples to prove his points, I will focus on two that demonstrate how virtuous action, though seeming good, really creates more suffering than wicked action.

Two of Machiavelli’s examples shine as the best way to prove this seemingly irrational idea. The first is generosity versus parsimony. Parsimony is perceived as a vice, but upon further examination it allows a prince to keep more money in his treasury, which allows him to help his citizens and advance his empire; conversely a generous prince will be forced to burden his citizens with taxes to feed his generosity, his people will feel they are giving their earned money away and consequently hate the prince. Either the public or another prince will overthrow him resulting in chaos, disorder and suffering. Another example is the use of cruelty. Machiavelli argues cruelty exists, and therefore must be managed responsibly by a prince to avoid inflicting unnecessary suffering upon his citizens. He writes:

“We may add this note that when a prince takes a new state, he should calculate the sum of all the injuries he will have to do, and do them all at once, so as not to have to do new ones every day; simply by not repeating them, he will be able to reassure people, and win them over to his side with benefits…benefits should be distributed very gradually, so the taste will last longer” (VIII).

A prince who refuses to use wickedness will be dominated by one that will. Therefore he must embrace the most malevolent forms of political maneuvers in order to prevent others from challenging his power and creating chaos. In both examples a prince is forced to act wickedly in order to achieve a larger harmony. Machiavelli argues the use of such measures is excusable, as long as they result in long-term political stability. The long-term well being of the public outweighs short-term suffering. A refusal to do what is necessary to create stability is the only true vice.

The reader may observe Machiavelli aims not to create a better world, but to minimize the suffering in it. He reasons one person (or entity) must have power in order for society to progress technologically and economically; someone must have the final word. That person must do whatever the situation requires to keep his seat of power and the public, stable. Economically this makes sense- many groups compete for a set amount of scarce resources, and this competition creates chaos. A prince who is willing to do whatever it takes to secure resources will secure the future for his citizens (one entity must win and one must lose, the battle is what creates suffering; and if the most malevolent techniques shorten this battle, they should be praised, not condemned). The means by which he does this can be morally questionable, as long as the long-term stability of the public is safe. In Machiavelli’s eyes the physical well being of hundred, or perhaps thousands or millions of individuals is more important than the spiritual well being of their leader.

To observe this, look no further than the American presidency. A comparison between Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter reveals that a politician must be willing to do anything for his country, no matter the personal costs. Nixon was a mass of contradictions: in his first inaugural address he said “the greatest honor history can bestow is the title of peacemaker”, yet he ordered more bombs dropped than any other president in US history. He was a staunch anti-communist, yet opened relations with the two most powerful communist countries in the world. He escalated the Vietnam War to its height, and then pulled out US troops. He was a republican, but created economic and social reform, such as the EPA, OSHA and the Clean Air Act of 1970, comparable only to the New Deal Era. He was elected to his second term by a landslide, but resigned from office before his term expired. Jimmy Carter was the opposite- he was a man of faith and conviction and refused to compromise his beliefs. His stubbornness prevented him from creating any lasting legislation. In fact, his beliefs caused him to make decisions detrimental to the US, such as ceding the Panama Canal to Panama. Morally this is the right choice, but politically it couldn’t be more wrong. Nixon was the opposite of Carter- he found no wrongdoing in hypocrisy. He practiced Machiavellian politics and in accordance with them sacrificed the sanctity of his soul for the benefit of his country, whereas Carter preferred a life of idealism, and even though he won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002, his presidency is considered rather insignificant in terms of lasting change created. Although Carter is considered a moral person, Nixon’s ambiguities lead to beneficial change, both economically and socially, and many of his programs are still intact today, whereas Carter’s are not. The divorce of politics with morals is evident. The well being of the public cannot be hindered by beliefs, whether an act is called virtue or vice is not important; it is the affect on the well being of the public that matters.

So who is virtuous and who is malicious? Is it Richard Nixon or Jimmy Carter? The answer to this question cannot be answered because two different things are being compared. Nixon acted in the interest of the public and Carter acted in the interest of his ideals. If Machiavelli proves one thing through this passage, it is that private virtue must be abandoned when one enters politics. He is not advocating a private citizen to follow his doctrines- his treatise is dedicated to a prince or politician. That group of people is the one Machiavelli is advising. Jimmy Carter is a model private citizen and a poor politician; Richard Nixon is a poor private citizen and a model politician. The two are different people and consequently excel in their own spheres.

Machiavelli advocates a different kind of morality in politics. He sets the common good as the highest honor attainable and his zeal for it is so strong; he is willing to sacrifice everything, including morality and religion for it. For this we may condemn him for his methods, but we cannot condemn him for the results he achieves. If it wasn’t for Machiavellism (for a lack of a better name) today’s society could never have progressed to where it is today. His ideas permeate into our government and economy, and whether we like it or not, the well being of our country, and all other countries for that matter, depend on them.