Analysis of Machiavelli\'s The Prince PDF

Preview

Summary

Essay ...

Description

In the actions of all men, and especially of princes, where there is no court to appeal to, one looks to the end. So let a prince win and maintain his state: the means will always be judged honorable, and will be praised by everyone. For the vulgar are taken in by the appearance and the outcome of a thing, and in the world there is no one but the vulgar; the few have no place there when the many have somewhere to lean on (Machiavelli, The Prince).

Perhaps the most influential and controversial book in history, Niccolo Machiavelli's' The Prince raises issues which are still considered and debated centuries down the line. The Prince was written in order to achieve a position in the new Italian government of the Medici family. Having had worked closely with the anti Medici government, Machiavelli was charged with conspiracy and remained in prison for a year before he was exiled to his estate outside of Florence. It was then where he begun to write what he hoped would become his passage to the Medici government, The Prince. The writings of this book was deemed unsuccessful by Machiavelli, the Medici family did not give him the appraisal he had hoped for nor did he receive a position under the new government. The Prince was published in 1515, 5 years after Machiavelli's' death, he was not even able to witness The Prince as the success story it has become. 'The end justifies the means' is Machiavelli's' identifying line to many people. My initial impression of the statement was that, given the ends is profitable enough, any means used to get there, including evil and immoral ones are justified by the greater goodness of the ends. This acceptance of wrong doings by Machiavelli could be the reason why he is now regarded somewhat, evil and sinister. It is also a possible explanation of where the term Machiavellian 1

derived from. The belief that immoral and potentially dangerous conduct is acceptable provided the end result is one which is believed to an individual to be worth the wrongdoings, resulted in a strong and perhaps wrong perception of Machiavelli. Tony Blaire's invasion of Iraq in 2009 was deemed to be incredibly Machiavellian of him as he used immoral means to justify his ends. In his script, Machiavelli says that 'where there is no court to appeal to, one looks to the end'. For instance where 'men' recognize immoral conduct being implemented, in a city with no courts to appeal to, they look to what the outcome will be and find peace in knowing that in the end, the hardship becomes worthy. Machiavelli argues that to the people- the end justifies the means. 'Let a prince win and maintain his state, the means will always be judged honorable and will be praised by everyone'. According to Machiavelli The Prince will only be praised by everyone if he adopts the lion and the fox theory. There are two types of combat: with laws and with force. One is for man, one is for the beast. It is necessary for a prince to know how to use both. He must know the fox and the lion – the fox to recognize the snares, and the lion to fight the wolves. a prudent prince knows when not to keep his faith.1 Machiavelli suggests that in order to be successful, a prince must learn how to be as unfaithful and dishonest as the many unfaithful and dishonest people he will be dealing with. 'The vulgar are taken in by the appearance and outcome of a thing, and in the world there is no one but the vulgar'. Instantly my thoughts led me to believe that here, Machiavelli is referring to everyone as vulgar. This statements mimics the opinions of self styled wise men who regard 'the many' with contempt. Seeing the many as gullible consumers of false appearances. If there is no one in the world but the vulgar, those men who consider themselves wise are no more immune to

1 Machiavelli, N. (1985). In what mode faith should be kept by princes. In: Mansfield, H The Prince. 2nd ed. london: Universit of Chicago Press. p84-85.

1

deceptions than the coarse multitude.2 Machiavelli implies that everyone should be wary of being taken in by good political appearances, and arm themselves against their seductions. however, most citizens have to evaluate 'great' actions from a distance, without the detailed information they would need to judge well. Despite this clear lack of ability of the people to make a well informed judgment, The Prince was written as a rulers handbook. It seems Machiavelli had no intentions of bringing information into light to the people but instead was informing the prince on how 'the many' look to the end appearance and outcome of a thing. 'Few have no place where the many have somewhere to lean on'. Machiavelli somewhat gives hope to a new prince, indicating that so long as the many have faith in him and praise his judgment, their place to 'lean on' becomes his majesty and the few are outnumbered and thus ineffective in their quest to change things. 'The means will always be judged honorable and will be praised by everyone'. People expect the price to make rational decisions and to use honorable means simply because there is no higher authority. Citizens have little choice but to praise the prince. After all, at a time with no legal authorities to appeal to, one simply puts all faith into the prince with great expectations. The princes control of his image gets exceptional attention in this chapter. Machiavelli lists 5 characteristics of which the prince should always appear to be. He also makes it clear that it is sufficient for the prince only to appear to possess these characteristics for "men in general, judge more with their eyes than their hands, because seeing is given to everyone, touching to few. Everyone sees what you appear, few touch what you are". It seems that the success of a prince depends on their strict separation from the people.3 Machiavelli implies that the prince should always be ready to appear merciful, faithful, humane, honest and religious. But never to truly 2 Benner, E (2009). Machiavelli's ethics. Oxfordshire: Princeton University Press. p64. 3 Coby, P. (1999). Machiavellis modes and orders. In: Coby Machiavellis Romans . usa: Lexington books. p216.

1

possess these traits. Not only because it is not necessary, as the many are merely judging from a distance but also because a prince who truly is all of the above, puts himself in danger. He should be ready at all times to abandon these features which he has portrayed and should appreciate that others will not truly possess these characteristics either. Machiavelli gives an example of a certain prince who preached peace and faith yet was very hostile to both. Machiavelli hesitatingly names the prince in chapter 21 as Ferdinand the Catholic of Spain. Had he observed both he would have had either his reputation or state taken from him many times. Machiavelli uses Ferdinand and a brilliant example of a man who mastered the art of deceit. He was clearly able to maintain his state, and allow everyone's perception of him to be good. His actions were judged honorable and he was still able to deviate from the image he was portraying to others, in order to maintain his state. While The Prince sets out a clear and understandable foundation of Machiavelli's' political beliefs, in short being, that ‘a prudent ruler cannot, and must not, honor his word when it places him at a disadvantage'. He teaches that success derives from deceit and deviation away from faithfulness and honesty. It must be recognized that The Prince was only a small part of Machiavelli's literary output. It was not written for academic appraisal, but dedicated to the prince in order to gain something in return. He may not have believed everything he wrote in The Prince but thought that a cold amoral attitude toward politics may impress the superiors. Perhaps NM's true political views lie within The Discourses on Livy where Machiavelli seems to give more thought out and rational opinions. Although The Discourses contained many similar negative characteristics of human conduct as contained within The Prince, Machiavelli suggests

1

that deceit during the course of war was laudable but detestable in all other things.4 There is a clear distinction of ideas between two pieces of Machiavelli's' work. Both of which were written in the same period of his life. Along with Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes helped to generate the tradition of political realism. Hobbes's work was designed to make politics more scientific. He believed if politics was analysed from a scientific perspective, he would be able to make conclusions which could ultimately lead to the creation of an enduring state of peace. Hobbes writing during the civil war, held an even lower estimation of human nature than Machiavelli. To Hobbes "if any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies".5 This suggests that Hobbes did not believe in the notion of negotiation between man and that they are incapable of settlements without becoming enemies. Machiavelli argued that man had the ability to be good, but was only good when it was in his self interest to be good. Clearly they have a similar sinister outlook on man. Hobbes, understandable due to the period of hardship in which he wrote his literary. Machiavelli, disputed as his main negative and immoral views were expressed in The Prince and as explained above, there are a number of reasons which suggest these are not Machiavelli's' true political beliefs. Hobbes argues that there are fundamental laws of nature which are necessary to avoid the state of war. In contrast, Machiavelli does not think deeply about a hypothetical state of nature, but does argue that there is "no hidden hand which brings all human activities into natural harmony".6 Both philosophers had revolutionary ideas 4Barnett, V. (2006). Niccolo Machiavelli, the cunning critic of political reason. History Today, [online] (56). Available at: http://www.historytoday.com/vincent-barnett/niccolo-machiavelli-%E2%80%93-cunningcritic-political-reason [Accessed 20 Dec. 2014]. 5 Hobbes, T (1651). Leviathan. London: Dover philosophical classics . p55. 6 Berlin, I. (1971). “The Originality of Machiavelli.” In H. Hardy and R. Hausheer (Eds.),” Isaiah Berlin: The Proper Study of Mankind.” (London: Chatto and Windus. 1999. pp. 269-326).

1

about government and both recognize the benefits of society being ruled by a sovereign power. Machiavelli, in The Prince directs Lorenzo de Medici on how to do so. Hobbes suggests that anything is permissible when there is no government to tell people how to conduct themselves. He further argues that in the state of nature we each have a right to all things, “even to one another’s body” Therefore, killing someone, in a state of nature, would be exactly the same as letting someone live.7 Hobbes suggests the requirement of a government, for man cannot be trusted not to behave so barbarically in the state of nature. Are Machiavelli's' beliefs still held by rulers today? In fact they are. It would be outrageous to say that rulers always keep their faith and never deviate from agreements made with others. However, more often it is not everyone who praises the judgments and means of those in power, in some cases 'the many' now oppose it. The separation of powers between the Legislative, the Executive and the Judiciary make it possible to appeal against the decision makers. The European convention of human rights also gives power to the people, allowing them rights such as freedom of speech. Nonetheless, the significance of Niccolo Machivelli's' The Prince is immense. Still used to guide current leaders and often used to compare with other philosophical work such as Leviathan of Thomas Hobbes.

7 Gardner, D. (2010). Thomas Hobbes and Niccolo Machiavelli: A Comparison. Available: http://www.eir.info/2010/09/01/thomas-hobbes-and-niccolo-machiavelli-a-comparison/. Last accessed 22nd December 2014.

1

Bibliography

1. Barnett, V. (2006). Niccolo Machiavelli, the cunning critic of political reason. History

Today, [online] (56). Available at: http://www.historytoday.com/vincent-barnett/niccolomachiavelli-%E2%80%93-cunning-critic-political-reason [Accessed 20 Dec. 2014]. 2. Benner, E (2009). Machiavelli's ethics. Oxfordshire: Princeton University Press. p64. 3. Berlin, I. (1971). “The Originality of Machiavelli.” In H. Hardy and R. Hausheer (Eds.),” Isaiah Berlin: The Proper Study of Mankind.” (London: Chatto and Windus. 1999. pp. 269-326). 4. Coby, P. (1999). Machiavellis modes and orders. In: Coby Machiavellis Romans . usa: Lexington books. 5. Gardner, D. (2010). Thomas Hobbes and Niccolo Machiavelli: A Comparison. Available: http://www.e-ir.info/2010/09/01/thomas-hobbes-and-niccolo-machiavelli-a-comparison/. Last accessed 22nd December 2014. 6. Hobbes, T (1651). Leviathan. London: Dover philosophical classics . p55. 7. Machiavelli, N. (1985). In what mode faith should be kept by princes. In: Mansfield, H The Prince. 2nd ed. london: University of Chicago Press. p84-85.

1...