Rocco D’Ambrosca: 02/09/2010
Niccolò Machiavelli is often judged harshly for his seemingly questionable moralistic and ethical advice. Machiavelli is not a corrupter or inspirer of evil, but most likely an extreme utilitarian, who looks far more towards an end than its means in a time far more desperate than today. It will be shown as illuminated by Machiavelli in his work, “The Prince”, that when the true nature of man is exposed, traits that normally appear virtuous are not truly virtuous, after being observed with an enlightened view of human nature.
As Machiavelli observes in “The Prince”, most ethicists and political scholars teach morality in terms of a perfect unrealistic ideal, saying, “it appears to me more appropriate to follow up the real truth of the matter than the imagination of it; for many have pictured republics and principalities which in fact have never been known or seen, because how one lives is so far distant from how one ought to live, that he who neglects what is done for what ought to be done”. He rather start his model from the perspective and in account of the horrible brutal unforgiving real world, rather than an idyllic fantasy which would, and could never, allow you to succeed or account for the unexpected problems in reality. He says that if a man appeals to this ideal fantasy and follows good virtues blindly it will, “sooner effects his ruin than his preservation; for a man who wishes to act entirely up to his professions of virtue soon meets with what destroys him among so much that is evil” (XV).
Of course, strict ethicists will claim that no matter the cause, you are better to have virtues than vices, and Machiavelli answers saying, “And I know that everyone will confess that it would be most praiseworthy in a prince to exhibit all the above qualities that are considered good; but because they can neither be entirely possessed nor observed, for human conditions do not permit it, it is necessary for him to be sufficiently prudent that he may know how to avoid the reproach of those vices which would not lose him it; but this not being possible, he may with less hesitation abandon himself to them. And again, he need not make himself uneasy at incurring a reproach for those vices without which the state can only be saved with difficulty, for if everything is considered carefully, it will be found that something which looks like virtue, if followed, would be his ruin; whilst something else, which looks like vice, yet followed brings him security and prosperity.” (XV (emphasis added)).
As stated earlier, if a prince were to follow a virtue blindly, it would quickly be his undoing; take mercy for example. If a prince was always merciful, he would soon be seen as soft and weak. His subjects would never take him seriously as a ruler and would never follow laws diligently. Just as his enemies would expect him to be weak in battle and would never feel any threat in attempting a siege. “A prince, so long as he keeps his subjects united and loyal, ought not to mind the reproach of cruelty; because with a few examples he will be more merciful than those who, through too much mercy, allow disorders to arise, from which follow murders or robberies; for these are wont to injure the whole people, whilst those executions which originate with a prince offend the individual only” (XVII). It is better for the people if the prince is occasionally cruel than blanketedly merciful. The occasional executions will lead to a respect for the law resulting in less crime, securing a happier and safer people; while a sweeping practice of mercy, will lead to abuse of the law and insurrection among the people as they are constantly abused by the prince’s inability to enforce the law.
All of Machiavelli’s reasoning on virtue and vice comes from his enlightened view of human nature. He questions, “whether it be better to be loved than feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, it is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with” (XVII). Why is it safer to be feared than loved? Again, it is the simple conclusion gathered from the fact of human nature, “this is to be asserted in general of men, that they are ungrateful, fickle, false, cowardly, covetous, and as long as you succeed they are yours entirely; they will offer you their blood, property, life, children, as is said above, when the need is far distant; but when it approaches they turn against you” (XVII). Machiavelli defines, “love is preserved by the link of obligation which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage; but fear preserves you by a dread of punishment which never fails” (XVII). Further, “in time of need (men) cannot be relied upon; and men have less scruple in offending one who is beloved than one who is feared” (XVII).
Although Machiavelli encourages the use of vices and the moderation of virtue, he does believe some actions are unforgiveable and never appropriate. “A prince ought to inspire fear in such a way that, if he does not win love, he avoids hatred; because he can endure very well being feared whilst he is not hated, which will always be as long as he abstains from the property of his citizens and subjects and from their women” (XVII). Machiavelli does not say that vices are generally good; he just doesn’t fear the use of them as long as there is good cause and purpose. If the vice of cruelty is to be exercised, in cases of execution, it must be done justly, “when it is necessary for him to proceed against the life of someone, he must do it on proper justification and for manifest cause” (XVII).
Machiavelli asserts that the occasional vice is absolutely paramount for any of a prince’s virtues to be of any worth. “When a prince is with his army, and has under control a multitude of soldiers, then it is quite necessary for him to disregard the reputation of cruelty, for without it he would never hold his army united or disposed to its duties” (XVII). Machiavelli proves this with two historical examples. He states that the “wonderful deeds of Hannibal” and all his successes as a leader, “arose from nothing else than his inhuman cruelty, which, with his boundless valour, made him revered and terrible in the sight of his soldiers, but without that cruelty, his other virtues were not sufficient to produce this effect”(XVII). Machiavelli proves this with his counter example saying, “that it is true his (Hannibal’s) other virtues would not have been sufficient for him may be proved by the case of Scipio, that most excellent man, not only of his own times but within the memory of man, against whom, nevertheless, his army rebelled in Spain; this arose from nothing but his too great forbearance, which gave his soldiers more license than is consistent with military discipline. For this he was upbraided in the Senate by Fabius Maximus, and called the corrupter of the Roman soldiery” (XVII). It was Scipio’s overuse of the virtue kindness and underuse of the vice cruelty that was his undoing.
With the truth of human nature and the realities of principality governance, it can be plainly seen that traits that appear virtuous are not really virtuous in light of the actual facts of human nature. More important than following specific virtues or avoiding certain vices is the ability of a prince to rule effectively; keeping his people happy, safe, and secure. “I come to the conclusion that, men loving according to their own will and fearing according to that of the prince, a wise prince should establish himself on that which is in his own control and not in that of others; he must endeavour only to avoid hatred, as is noted” (XVII).
RoccoJoe.com 