The analysis of Machiavelli as an amoralist – someone who disregards common views of what is right and wrong, unconcerned with morality as a whole (as compared to being immoral, and going against them) – is complicated. A traditional view of morality advocates for not doing wrong or harm to others, for altruism, and kindness. Nowhere in his philosophical work The Prince, first published in 1532, does Machiavelli show any regard for this kind of morality. The Prince is a guidebook for the maintenance of power by a prince (the name he gives to any sovereign); Machiavelli’s sole concern is how to stay in power and best exert it to prolong your rule and prosperity. However, this argument can only be made with a traditional, standard view of morality in mind, and one that examines the means more than the end. Machiavelli was a consequentialist; for all his advocacy of cruelty and violence and manipulation, he argues for the use of these to achieve the end of a stable, effective rule. Effective leadership and stability, to Machiavelli, benefitted all. Machiavelli’s traditional amorality is blatant in the earlier chapters in which he lays out the extremes that a prince should go to in order to maintain power. Particularly in the early chapters of the book, he sets these out in plain terms, objective and simple: after seizing a new principality “the family of the old prince must be destroyed”, to keep a principality used to living free, the prince must go about “devastating” his new subjects, and use cruelty well to consolidate his rule. In chapter 17, Machiavelli outlines one of his most famous views; “it is far better to be feared than loved.” This essentially underpins the contention of The Prince; Machiavelli knows that, while we would rather be loved, to be feared is always more “effective”, and will always keep a prince far more securely in power. Being feared requires a disregard for morality; being feared requires violence (or at least the threat of it) and ruthlessness. Neither of these are easy or even possible alongside an adherence to the traditional conception of morality. But within Machiavelli’s moral framework that strives to ensure stable and effective rule to benefit all, this advocacy of violence to this end may be seen as its own kind of moral. Morality is subjective; Machiavelli may deviate from traditional morality, but he deviates to the effect of stability that benefits all – can’t this be considered moral? Alongside his views and advocacy of violence, Machiavelli sets no store by moral virtue. In chapter 15, he argues that a prince “must be prepared not to be virtuous”, driven by the belief that “the conditions of the world” make traditional virtue (and morality) impossible, and far more of a hindrance to good rule than an aid. Generosity, to Machiavelli, isn’t worth it; it is good, but the price of altruism is too high. He doesn’t hold much regard for honesty, asserting that the prince would do better to “learn from the fox and the lion”, to be cunning and opportunistic as well
…show more content…
On the one hand, he shows a total lack of concern for a traditional sense of morality, for goodness and altruism and virtue, favouring instead cunning and ruthlessness. On the other, he favours these things to the result of a stable, effective rule that benefits the people who live under it. Of course, this doesn’t make Machiavelli infallible. Though Machiavelli is pragmatic, the cruelty and self-interest that he promotes to his reader may easily provoke resentment and contempt, despite the chapters in which he provides attempted safeguards against this. Machiavelli’s amorality doesn’t make his contention defective. Instead, it provides a kind of protection against the “wretched” men and world that he believes we live in; morality in an amoral world, however ideal or preferable, is far less effective than adapting and being amoral yourself. His claim that being amoral and ruthless are far more effective means of grasping and maintaining power, therefore ensuring stability and effective rule which benefits the people, is not unfounded. It is too idealistic to claim that Machiavelli’s amoralism makes his arguments defective; especially within the context of 16th century Florentine politics, his assertion that one must be ruthless and “play the game” of politics hold steady
On the one hand, he shows a total lack of concern for a traditional sense of morality, for goodness and altruism and virtue, favouring instead cunning and ruthlessness. On the other, he favours these things to the result of a stable, effective rule that benefits the people who live under it. Of course, this doesn’t make Machiavelli infallible. Though Machiavelli is pragmatic, the cruelty and self-interest that he promotes to his reader may easily provoke resentment and contempt, despite the chapters in which he provides attempted safeguards against this. Machiavelli’s amorality doesn’t make his contention defective. Instead, it provides a kind of protection against the “wretched” men and world that he believes we live in; morality in an amoral world, however ideal or preferable, is far less effective than adapting and being amoral yourself. His claim that being amoral and ruthless are far more effective means of grasping and maintaining power, therefore ensuring stability and effective rule which benefits the people, is not unfounded. It is too idealistic to claim that Machiavelli’s amoralism makes his arguments defective; especially within the context of 16th century Florentine politics, his assertion that one must be ruthless and “play the game” of politics hold steady