The Amoral Prince free essay sample

Machiavelli presents his stance on morality first through his rejection of morality as a viable framework, and second through his promotion of virtu, glory, and reputation, which brings considerations outside of the amoral nature of the search for power. It is clear that Machiavelli has higher priorities than the moral actions of the prince. We will write a custom essay sample on The Amoral Prince or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page He regularly rejects morality as a necessity, opting instead generally for that which creates stability. â€Å"This leads us to a question that is in dispute: Is it better to be loved than feared, or vice versa? My reply is one ought to be both loved and feared; but, since it is difficult to accomplish both at the same time, I maintain it is much safer to be feared than loved†¦Ã¢â‚¬ (51) Here he spurns the idea that love, a generally accepted goal of those seeking the moral high ground, is relevant to the higher goal of the safety of the prince. Some would contend that Machiavelli is promoting evil by promoting fear over love, but he doesn’t ever promote evil when it is not called for, only when it is most efficacious. In this instance he simply felt being feared was the safer alternative. Evil for the sake of itself is actively discouraged. â€Å"[the prince] should do what is right if he can; but he must be prepared to do wrong if necessary†(55) Here what is necessary is what maintains power, but with that necessity absent, honorable actions are preferable. Machiavelli does obviously have some moral compass, as he feels that good actions do have a value over evil actions when power is not a consideration. For the leader though, power is always a consideration, and subsequently morals are never the most pressing goal. Instead of worrying about his own morals, the leader needs to instead worry about their absence in others: Anyone who wants to act the part of a good man in all circumstances will bring about his own ruin, for those he has to deal with will not all be good. So it is necessary for a ruler, if he wants to hold on to power, to learn how not to be good, and to know when it is and when it is not necessary to use this knowledge. (48) The implication here is that in a world with all good men, a leader would be able to lead through only good actions. As this is not the case, leaders are forced to beat evil doers at their own game when necessary. In addition to trying to outsmart those who would do evil against the prince, the prince should also make efforts to discourage future acts of evil by others, and subsequently prevent future necessitation of his own harsh acts: Well used cruelty(if one can speak well of evil) one may call those atrocities that are commited at a stroke, in order to secure one’s power, and are then not repeated, rather every effort is made to ensure one’s subjects benefit in the long run. 30) From this it is evident that cruelty should never be a goal in itself, as it alienates ones subjects, which has its own harms. Machiavelli gives us Maximinus as an example: [he] had acquired a reputation for terrible cruelty†¦ So everybody was†¦ agitated with hatred arising from their fear of his ferocity. First Africa rebelled, and then the senate and the whole population of Rome; soon all Ital y was conspiring against him. His own army turned against him†¦ Seing so many united against him, they lost their fear of him and killed him. 62) So it is clear that Machiavelli is not in favor of evil; it causes a populace to turn against its leader. If the populace’s fear of punishments and interventions by the prince rivals their fear of having an unstable state, they will have no reason to further support the prince. Machiavelli’s prince should be viewed as generally moral, even if occasionally he is not, in order to promote stability and respect towards himself. Again, this is not for the sake of morals, but for the sake of the kingdom’s maintenance. As a general rule, Machiavelli does not respect morals as an important part of being a leader, though he doesn’t actively disdain them. The appearance of morals has its own important ends, of causing the populace to respect their ruler, but this is not the same as being an actually moral person. From this one would conclude that Machiavelli is a promoter of amoralism, but as we will see he does have respect for some goals beyond only power and stability. In many ways glory is the means to causing respect, and resultantly stability, â€Å"[Ferdinand of Aragon’s] deeds have followed one another so closely that he has never left space between one and the next for people to plot uninterruptedly against him†(68) In this instance by constantly maintaining an honorable reputation, Ferdinand was able to avoid any maintained criticisms of himself, which compounded could have lead to unrest. Prior examples have shown glory, virtu and reputation is merely another means to an end, not an end in itself, but there are quite a few hints that glory is something to be sought for its own sake: Men are much more impressed by what goes on in the present than by what happened in the past†¦ So they will spring to a new ruler’s defense, provided he plays his part properly. Thus, he will be doubly glorious†¦ just as he is doubly shamed who, being born a ruler, has lost power through lack of skill in ruling (73) Here it is notable that glory(and its inverse, shame) are quantified. Were these simply means to state stability, it is expected that a ruler should achieve exactly as much as is necessary. Instead, glory is something that should be sought, and shame avoided, in quantity. It seems more notable that one can be ‘doubly shamed’. For consistency with the premise that maintenance of power is the end goal, any loss of it would seem the ultimate shame. In this case it seems more about the spectacularity of the failure, and presumably the endurance of the subsequent shame in public memory. Glory and reputation then seem to be partly a search for a lasting memory of greatness within the public consciousness, not just for the preservation of the state. Glory is not only its own end, but it is one that can only be achieved through moral means, â€Å"One ought not, of course, to call it virtu to massacre one’s fellow citizens, to betray one’s friends, to break one’s word, to be without mercy and without religion. By such means one can acquire power but not glory. (28) This is an interesting contrast with Machiavelli’s many statements to the effect of doing whatever maintains power is best, good or bad. There is still an implication that it is better to have power without glory, than it is to have neither. Still, it is clear that glory is something desirable of itself, and that it cannot be achieved through immoral means. A prince then, once he has attained his power, must have moral considerations at heart. Machiavelli’s prince is by no means an immoral or even amoral actor, though he may occasionally commit immoral acts, in the search for power. Clearly, morals do play into the search for a lasting reputation, which is by Machiavelli’s estimation at least equally, if not more important than power alone, â€Å"Above all a ruler should make every effort to ensure that whatever he does it gains him a reputation as a great man, a person who excels. †(68) This great man cannot become so simply by being an acceptable leader, one who holds power but does not use it towards his reputation. Yes, Machiavelli does teach us that evil acts are occasionally necessary, but purely as a means towards the stable foundation that allows a ruler to lead with success and morality.