One of the things we were asked to
consider during class was human nature in the context of the reading. The
general definition of human nature (at least from google) is "the general psychological characteristics, feelings, and behavioral
traits of humankind, regarded as shared by all humans." When trying to
come up with a description of what human nature entails from Machiavelli's
point of view I encountered an issue. A key part of the definition of human
nature is that it is something that is thought to be shared by ALL humans.
Machiavelli appears to generalize certain traits to large portions of the
population, but not to all humans. He makes statements about the populous, military,
and rulers/princes as though these three categories do not have the same human
nature.
Machiavelli seems
to think poorly of human nature of average citizens. One clear statement he
makes early on in The Prince is “People
are by nature inconstant. It is easy to persuade them of something, but it is
difficult to stop them from changing their minds. So you have to be prepared
for the moment when they no longer believe: Then you have to force them to
believe…” (pg 17). The overall message is that people are easily persuaded, but
not consistent in their thinking, so you will have to force them to be. This seems
to be a fairly negative statement. Given that Machiavelli is giving this advice
to princes, it also seems as though he does not believe princes necessarily
share this trait with the populous, as if they are above this kind of behavior.
He makes another negative statement about the human nature of the populous in
the chapter when he is discussing cruelty and compassion, “Men are quicker to
forget the death of their father than the loss of their inheritance…” (pg 36).
The message he is conveying here is that as a whole people care less about
human life than their money. He expands on this later on when he says “You
become hated above all if you prey on the possessions and the women of your subject.
You should leave both alone. The vast majority of men, so long as their goods
and their honor are not taken from them, will live contentedly…” (pg 38). Here
he states that people value their money/goods and their honor above all else,
including human life. For a final example, Machiavelli comes right out and
states that he thinks poorly of men when he says, “…if all men were good, this
advice would be bad; but since men are wicked and will not keep faith with you,
you need not keep faith with them” (pg. 37). This statement makes it very clear
that Machiavelli feels that the human nature of men is not good as a whole. At the
same time he also separates rulers from the “men” when he says they will not
keep faith with you, so you do not need to keep faith with them.
Something that
seems harder to clearly define is what Machiavelli believes is the human nature
of rulers. However, given that he separates the human nature of the general
populous from that of rulers, it appears as though he views them as different,
and possibly superior.
People in the
military also seem to be in a different category according to Machiavelli.
Although my evidence for this claim comes only from one of his examples, he
still categorizes the general behavior of the military as separated from the
populous. This is limited to one case, but it would be interesting to track if
he continues to categorize military members as having different shared
traits/feelings than the populous. He states that, “The people loved peace and
quiet and , for this reason, liked their rulers to be unassuming; but the
soldiers wanted the emperor to be a man of war and liked him to be arrogant,
cruel, and rapacious. They wanted him to direct his aggression against the
populace, so they could double their income and give free rein to their greed
and cruelty” (pg. 40). Although this one example of a specific time in history
does not mean Machiavelli thinks this is the human nature of all soldiers, it
does make me question if he thinks soldiers are inclined to be different from
the populous in other ways.
I think Machiavelli's view of human nature was evident of the times where people didn't travel a lot. The average person would only travel 100 miles outside of their hometown. If you have lived your life in the same area you will probably assume that the experiences you grew up with are universal. I think he generalizes certain traits because from his experience many people exhibited those traits. I also disagree with his view on human nature. Many people during his time weren't always the most well informed citizens. Many weren't allowed to vote or participate in government. We know more about human nature than we did in his time.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with assessing human nature in people, or even categories of people, as you suggest Machiavelli does, is that not all think of human nature at the very core of its debate in the same way. This broadly boils down to whether one considers themselves as a realist or an idealist, and from there, one can determine whether human nature stems from people being inherently bad, (as a realist would pose) or inherently good (as an idealist would suggest).
ReplyDeleteIt is in my opinion that Machiavelli sees human nature as stemming from a realist perspective, evident by the examples you have already provided. I think Machiavelli’s intention was not in so much as to categorize differences in human nature because of one’s status, but rather to provide Princes with advice on how to overcome and maintain order within a society where Machiavelli believes that human nature mandates that people are inherently bad, selfish, “inconstant,” “easily persuaded,” and so forth. I agree with you in the fact that Machiavelli never addresses a ruler as having the flaws that come from a realist’s view on human nature, but this is probably because it would be unwise for him to offend a ruler, himself.
As far as your discussion on the human nature of rulers, it seems that Machiavelli does not explicitly state his opinion, but he rather hints at it with realist advice for a world of people that he would see as inherently bad—including rulers (although he will not explicitly say so). By this, I mean like what I have said above; a Prince must learn to cope with the realist view of human nature, thus a Prince must take on a realist maneuver to combat human nature and be rational. This is clearly outlined in Machiavelli’s discussion on advisors and rulers in chapters 22 and 23.
If anything, Machiavelli’s discussion of the military as far as concerning human nature is the epitome of his realist view. Specifically, Machiavelli describes many examples of Roman soldiers who prioritize “cruelty and greed,” and the fact that rulers must choose to either satisfy these soldiers’ human nature to possess these traits, or focus on the populous, who have a lesser degree of traits that embody all the bad qualities of human nature (pg. 40). So, in that sense, I agree that Machiavelli certainly categorizes the populous, ruler, and military when discussing certain aspects of human nature, but I believe that he does so in showing the different degrees of a realist’s view of human nature has on a scale of those who have power, and those who have lesser. All in all, I believe Machiavelli was less trying to categorize human nature of different people, but rather to offer up advice to a ruler on how to combat the varying degrees of human nature that a ruler must face, in order to be effective.
Machiavelli, in my opinion was spot on with his dismal view of human nature, or as Hobbes would say life is "Nasty, brutish and short" One has to accept the fact that a human life simply had much less value in Machiavelli's time than we are accustomed to. Not to mention this is a man who has personally suffered some of the worst that one person can do to another when he was imprisoned and tortured for no reason other than he fell out of political favor.
ReplyDeleteWhen Machiavelli says its better to kill a father then to take away the property or the women, he is really talking about rule of law. He mentions many times that the Prince must set the rules of the game and be seen as enforcing those rules. That, is why when you kill someone you need to be seen as having a valid reason to do so. Breaking a law that the Prince made is a reason to kill someone.
When it comes to the nature of soldiers, we have to remember that this is a time when invading armies took what they needed by force from those they conquered. This is still very much the era where military forces commonly would rape, pillage, and loot their way across the countryside. It is an unfortunate fact that some American soldiers STILL behave in this way. As a war veteran, it is my opinion that the only thing stopping more soldiers from the rape,pillage, loot type behaviors is the strict discipline and enforcing the rule of law upon our soldiers. It may be cynical, but I think Machiavelli was right, in troubled times very few people will behave in a noble manner, most only look out for themselves.