Human nature and Machiavelli's focus on use overall.

Machiavelli's work has remained well-known both for its ability to incense and also for its political expertise -- 'Machiavellian' being used popularly as synonymous with dishonesty, cruelty, and evil. Debating Machiavelli's own beliefs and morality is a frequent consequence of discussing The Prince.

During class, I noticed many of my fellow students prefacing any of their remarks that could be taken as complimentary to Machiavelli's writings with the fact that they would never consider such brutal measures. I find it interesting that the assumption is that Machiavelli, in writing what measures are most effective, inherently endorses being cruel. While it is distasteful obviously to suggest that beginning a reign with a massacre in order to prevent needing further violence down the line, I find that the overall tone is one of honesty rather than true suggestion. The morality of the actions involved is not Machiavelli's current concern, the usefulness and expediency is. It can hardly be argued that colonization was not a useful measure for the subjugation of an acquired territory (colonial collapse, of course, is a thing, but much later down the line).

These measures existed previous to Machiavelli's writing them, and so he cannot be blamed for their existence. After all, the fact that Machiavelli endured unjustified torture after the restoration of the Medici's effective rule would make him more than savvy to the fact that such distasteful matters are in many ways an everyday part of government. Italy during Machiavelli's lifetime was a crucible of such political struggle. His studies of ancient Rome as well would have been rife with examples of exactly what he writes about -- and Rome was, of course, an almost unstoppable power steamrollering over other countries and adding them to its political reach for many years.

Part of what fascinates me so much about the text is the diversity of interpretation and reaction, but this is a frequent theme, and I've been thinking post-discussion about what exactly makes this so. All in all I feel that Machiavelli's own viewpoints are irrelevant to the text. However, thanks to the pervasiveness of interpreting politics with an eye towards morality, it's difficult to divorce our ideas of how to be 'good' from what would technically be efficient. Machiavelli's text ignores this or addresses it only to prove the inefficiency of being 'kind' over 'cruel'.

When the advice given is backed up so well by history as solid if immoral, why react with such moral panic rather than acknowledging its wisdom? Is it because it addresses such dark topics? Is it because of the ubiquity of (often religion-based) morals in theory? I think it gets to a topic that has been privy to debate for ages -- the nature of man and whether or not goodness or evil is inherent, and if either one is true, then whether we should try to be good. Machiavelli presents what he thinks will be the easiest and least wasteful way to rule in specific situations. Whether or not these actions should be taken is up for us and ostensibly the prince involved to debate.