Morals are for Sissies

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 (Berlin 226). 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 intends to put the benefit of the group above that of the individual, and he uses scientific thought to best achieve this goal. That means anything ineffective must be eliminated from one’s actions including morality, religion and generosity. Conversely anything that proves to be effective, no matter how evil it is, should guide one’s actions 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.

Perhaps this is where Machiavelli is misunderstood the most. He is not evil- he advocates politics as a way to achieve political stability for the public, rather than a factor of production for private interests. His conclusions give no pretense for use- they simply state an observed pattern. If any one adjective can be ascribed to Machiavelli’s writing, it is pure. Unlike a politician he doesn’t have a bias or stand to gain power; he just wants the public to be safe. A prince who refuses to use wickedness will be dominated by one that will. Therefore he must embrace the most malevolent form of politics in order to prevent others from challenging his power and creating chaos. The 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.