In literature many books are forgotten soon after they are published- they either sit on a bookshelf in an anonymous bookstore collecting dust on their fading covers, or become furniture levelers or drink coasters. Other books may be popular during the author’s lifetime, or perhaps during a certain time period when his stories coincide with the political or social environment. A precious few are remembered for generations after their conception; and fewer still are remembered hundreds of years later. Those books become either famous or infamous depending on the text. They raise questions that are so important to humanity that their context and implications are debated long after the author’s death, perhaps even until the present day. Niccolò Machiavelli’s The Prince is one of these rare books. It was published in 1513, and nearly 500 years later the questions the book raises about human nature such as is morality valuable, and how are humans supposed to act that are still debated by scholars around the world.

The second question is the most important. It challenges the values people believe give meaning to their lives: morality, piety, generosity, honesty and God are all dismissed as taxing burdens to man’s true potential. One may condemn him for his thoughts, but we cannot ignore the obvious fact that almost 500 years later he and The Prince are still discussed because Machiavelli raises questions that threaten the most basic assumptions humans hold. He sees the world in terms of ends rather than means. This troubles us because we create rules to keep order. These rules dictate how we live our lives- generally if one follows the rules he will become an accepted member of society. But Machiavelli proposes the rules are meaningless. The results of one’s action are the only thing that matters, not what methodology is used to achieve it. This makes us uncomfortable because it means our actions don’t matter unless they’re successful. Perhaps the most uncomfortable thing about The Prince is its accuracy. We may not like what Machiavelli says, but it is too precise to be ignored; and in the 500 years since The Prince’s publication no one has disproved its theories. From here another question emerges: should Machiavelli be condemned for his lack of morality? He should be praised for it because morality is a costly burden in public service: it forces one to act in the interests of his beliefs, rather than adapt to individual circumstances; in other words morality hinders results. This allows more adaptive princes to take over the moral one, creating chaos in the populace. Machiavelli knew this well, and chose a life void of purpose and meaning in order to insure the continued prosperity of the people. The tyranny of a single ruler is a necessary sacrifice that should be overlooked because it creates a stable environment for the public. Machiavelli’s book was a product of the political strife in Italy rather than his actual views; his ideas about republican government are explained in depth in The Discourses. Viewed in this light Machiavelli is not evil at all: he embodies goodness and purity. His prince holds no ulterior motives other than his rule, and thus the well being of the public; and if evil is the best way to serve the people, then the prince must be willing to become it

I view his sacrifice as a noble one, and after reading his book and other literature about it; I view Machiavellism in a favorable light. It advocates the sacrifice of one man’s soul for the benefit of the public. One must not forget, however, that public and private morality is very different. One must not forget that public and private moralities are very different; that is, what benefits a politician is not what benefits a private citizen. Morality in particular is a virtue to a private citizen but a hindrance to a politician. It compels people to make decisions based on compassion rather than reason. In private life this virtue is extolled, because the doer is rewarded with the admiration of his peers. In public life, however, one is responsible not only for himself, but for the entire public. Generosity and liberality are vices in public life because in the end they burden citizens with excess taxes, effectively taking away their ability to spend their earnings. This differs from private life because one’s earnings are his own to spend, not subject to the scrutiny of the public; the added responsibility creates the need for parsimony. One must balance what he wants with what the public needs- Machiavelli stresses making decisions that benefit the public rather than the politician. This is the essence of Machiavelli’s writings- long-term parsimony versus short-term liberality. Parsimony may be less pleasurable than liberality, but it is more successful in creating political stability. Perhaps Machiavelli advocates politics without morality because like liberality, morality often causes poor decisions to be made concerning the stability of an entire city versus the sanctity of the politician’s soul. A politician must do whatever it takes to achieve the ends of the public because thousands, perhaps millions of lives depend on his decisions, whereas a public citizen is responsible only for his life. Machiavellism is not inherently evil, it should be practiced in its own sphere; in private life it is condemned, in public life it is a necessity.

Ideas such as this put the reader in a confusing place. How could there be two different correct moralities? Many believe the world is a monistic place, that is, there is one organizing principle, such as God in monotheism that organizes the world. For many it may be difficult to accept this because it means there is no definite way to live. People must constantly evaluate and reevaluate their actions to determine if what they are doing is in accordance with their beliefs. This means no one may rest, if the public is to remain safe; and therefore free and prosperous. It is an indictment of laziness and blind obedience. Both are dangerous to the public because they abandon responsibility for instant gratification. This inconvenient truth is one many would like to ignore, because it is so ironic. The well being of the public is best furthered by it brightest members, but what motivation do those few have for helping the many, if humans are hedonistic animals like Machiavelli describes them? Perhaps Machiavelli means humans must take responsibility for their actions if they are to be safe; and if this means reacting differently to each individual problem, so be it. This ambiguity is what makes people so uncomfortable: it, like fortune, is unpredictable.

The reader must realize the ambiguity of The Prince to fully understand it. It reveals the fundamental problem behind belief- that any gain by one group, no matter the reason results in an equal loss of another- but gives no solution; and perhaps that is the point: his ambiguity coincides with the ambiguity of the human condition. There are no definite answers to anything. This is what makes Machiavelli so uncomfortable. He believes there is so much out of human control actions are responsible for a small portion of success. This view is echoed in Chapter 25 of The Prince where he ends with a metaphor about the influence of luck on human affairs. He does this because there is no way to rationalize luck, just as there is no way to rationalize existence; humans are stuck on the Earth without a God, or other ethereal entity to tell them why things happen or why they exist. Sometimes the answer can be derived, but more often than not arbitrary actions of other people compound together in an unforeseeable consequence that affects a single person directly. How are people supposed to act knowing that at any time fortune can destroy everything they have built?

Machiavelli’s ideas raise more questions than answers. Just when it seems like one question will be answered, another question hinders its explanation. This pattern is reflected in the complex web of 500 years worth of literature written about his treatise. The more we try to solve Machiavelli, the more we realize how ignorant we really are. Perhaps his ideas hold the truth, but acknowledging their validity means invalidating the values hailed as truth since the conception of monism, and judging from the continued efforts in disprove Machiavelli’s theories, we can conclude people will continue to toil in this futility. The only way to disprove Machiavelli is to act in accordance with his theories then observe the results; and this is the one thing humans are least willing to do.  If there is one valid conclusion that can be made about The Prince, it is the questions it raises will remain unanswered.

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.

Chapter VI: About New Princedoms Acquired with One’s Own Arms and Energy [Virtù]

Page 17

“And it is worth noting that nothing is harder to manage, more risky in the undertaking, or more doubtful of success, than to set up as the introducer of a new order. Such an innovator has as enemies all the people who were doing well under the old order, and only half-hearted defenders in those who hope to profit from the new. This half-heartedness derives partly from fear of opponents, who have the law on their side, and partly from human skepticism, since men don’t really believe in anything new until they have solid experience of it. The is why, whenever the enemies of a new state have occasion to attack it, they do so furiously, while its friends only languidly come to its defense, so that the venture and its supporters are likely to collapse together…it is the nature of people to be fickle; to persuade them of something is easy, but to make them stand fast in that conviction is hard. Hence things must be arranged so that when they no longer believe they can be compelled to believe by force.”

This analysis of human behavior is a typical Machiavellian idea: it is scientific, declarative and reveals the animalistic side of humanity. They tend to be quick to pledge their allegiance, but slow to give action to their thoughts. When taking over a new land, a prince must do his best to minimize the changes in the everyday lives of his new citizens, because people will be slow to support him. Change is difficult for people, and Machiavelli suggests minimizing suffering instead of compounding happiness, because it is most practical.

This concept is one Machiavelli echoes throughout The Prince. All of his advice pertaining to how Princes should acquire new lands is based on minimizing pain placed on the citizens. This may seem like a noble goal at first, until one reads the last sentence of the passage. It is clear Machiavelli is not idealistic; in fact, many consider him the exact opposite. He is a realist; that is, he aims to do the best with what the world is, rather than try to change it to match his image of perfection. His message may be read as: “lie to the people to gain their trust, then use intimidation and fear to make them obey you”. Advice such as this is quite common The Prince- because people are indecisive, it is best for the public to trust (or obey by force) one man to make decisions for them, especially in times of war, when there is not time to thoroughly debate an issue and arrive at a majority opinion. Even in Machiavelli’s Discourses, where he lays out the foundation for Republican government, he knows in times of war one man must be appointed as temporary ruler. (Discourses II-15) The US Constitution, which outlines arguably the most democratic form of government in history, gives the President the power to carry out war. This is a safeguard against the fickleness of the populace. Appointing a prince, Machiavelli argues, is one way to solve the many problems that plague government; his decisions may not pleasant, but the alternative- not making decisions- is worse than making poor or cruel ones.

The passage transcends war- it outlines one of the foundations of Machiavelli’s logic. He sets up idealism against realism and asks: which one would you rather have as your government? According to the passage people will not believe in idealism until it has been proven practical, which is why establishing a new government is so dangerous. People say they believe in ideals until the time comes to prove their beliefs, then they are hesitant to support their opinions until one side has claimed victory. Only then will they pledge their allegiance, and only to the winning side. They naturally resist change, and more often than not rebellions fail; therefore it is more practical to pledge allegiance to the existing government until the insurrection has claimed victory. People do this because they need two things in government: repetition and stability. These are the two things a Prince should aim to create because they are the most practical. People use idealism to hide the realism they really believe in, and therefore a successful government must do so as well.