Machiavelli saw the rise and fall of different regimes in Florence (and elsewhere) during his lifetime. Someone mentioned in class that his advice seems to advocate the existence of a more stable state and that idea really stuck with me. In my mind, a man who had undergone that sort of transition would be interested in preserving the government and dissuading rebellions. Is it better to, as Machiavelli says, kill one or two people fantastically and ensure the law-abiding nature of your subjects, or allow the political instability of your government with possible rebellion?
I do wonder how important it is to remember that he isn't directing this advice at everyday individuals like you and me; he is trying to advise policy makers. Does that make a difference in the morality of what he's advocating? Should a prince be held to a different standard? Machiavelli wrote, "A ruler, and particularly a ruler who is new to power, cannot conform to all those rules that men who are thought good are taught to respect, for he is often obliged, in order to hold on to power, to break his word, to be uncharitable, inhumane, and irreligious" (37). Or, in the end, do the ends justify the means?
It is extremely important to discuss the differences in the audience that Machiavelli originally wrote to and those who have read it throughout the last few centuries. As you recalled, his aim was to guide those with leadership; the policy makers of the time. Whether or not this was to truly advise the Medici or if it was simply to get back in the good graces of the aristocrats, his target was clear. With current day populations, a different view is held; one that explores human nature, morality and the ethos of the piece. The Medici, along with other leaders maintained an approach, when applied that regarded the efficiency of Machiavelli's plan.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that Machiavelli proposed a different moral standard that princes or leaders maintain, in comparison to their subjects. In chapter eighteen for example, Machiavelli describes, "those rulers who have not thought it important to keep their word have achieved great things, and have known how to employ cunning to confuse and disorient other men" (36). He further explains, "people are so simpleminded and so preoccupied with their immediate concerns, that if you set out to deceive them, you will always find plenty of them who will let themselves be deceived" (37). He easily describes the nature of the commonwealth as those easily controlled. In this sense, it would only be fitting that a ruler takes control.
I do think it is vital to remember that Machiavelli is writing this for a very specific audience, not for everyday citizens that are not in the position of state building. I think when you look at the Prince in its most basic form, it is written by a man in 1532 who has traveled extensively and seen how effective state building is achieved. Machiavelli knows that in order for the state to prosper, various measures, violent or not, must be taken to ensure power and stability. I don’t think Machiavelli has a violent nature, he just has seen first hand how to be an effective leader, which usually requires the use of violence and fear.
ReplyDeleteIn order to understand what Machiavelli was trying to say we have to know who is audience was. He intended this to be for princes or rulers. He saw the rise and fall of rulers across Italy as a whole. Sometimes rulers and princes have to make hard decisions that most people will never have to make. I agree with him that sometimes rulers must break their word. I think he was directing princes to be feared in states that were less table. We can see this in countries like North Korea where the ruling elite are feared. I would say that the morality is different because he is advising policy makers. They have to make decisions that will make some people mad.
ReplyDelete