In what sense (if any) was Machiavelli's approach to politics 'scientific' rather than 'moral'?

AS and A Level Religious Studies & Philosophy

Richard Wood

0315672

GV201 Introduction to Political Theory

In what sense (if any) was Machiavelli’s approach to politics ‘scientific’ rather than ‘moral’?

In the Prince Machiavelli is not trying to answer any specific moral question but rather he is attempting to give reasons and guidance on why and how a Prince should come to power and hold it. Invariably this has a scientific approach as he does not try to accomplish any goal but for the Prince to assert his power. It is because ‘The Prince’ is more of a practical guide rather than a philosophical machination or political conjecture that Machiavelli is forced to use a scientific approach. Even when Machiavelli does state that a Prince should look after the well being of his citizens it is not because he sees a moral value in this but because it will enable the Prince to retain power. However Machiavelli does state that at times the Prince must show at least some sense of morality to his citizens even if it is just in order to consolidate his power. Wisby (1995) asserts that Machiavelli’s work was more important than this however, he sees ‘The Prince’ as a book that discounted god as the giver of power to the ruler but ‘man’s will’. He also states that beyond ‘The Prince’ Machiavelli’s work pushed for Republic’s and was not entirely a scientific approach at gaining power although this was limited, “If beyond ‘The Prince’, there was another Machiavelli, the advocate of a virtuous republicanism, that influence remained far more limited than his portrait as the evil one, teaching that lies, fear, and cruelty were to be judged only for there effectiveness in keeping power and enhancing control by the ruler of the state.” (Wisby:1995,1). In order to answer the question effectively it is important not only to look at Machiavelli’s approach to the question of how a prince should retain power but also to look at what Machiavelli was trying to achieve and why. Therefore in this essay I will study the reasons for Machiavelli’s approach, his beliefs on a prince’s virtues, cruelty and compassion, and a ‘prince’s honour’.

Machiavelli wanted to know how real power works. He wanted to look at how men get hold of power, how they keep it and what they achieve by it. In doing this he had patriotic motives. As an Italian he wanted his country to find peace and unity, so he looked at how states were formed and nations were built. His patriotic feelings demanded practical solutions, and this caused him to look at real-life political behaviour. In order for him to solve the immediate problem or at least to understand it, it was not enough for him to find a moral standing, he had to search for a scientific solution. It was this desire for strong absolutist governments in Italy that would withstand pressure from Europe that led Machiavelli to write the Prince (and also to curry favour with the Medici family) (Hulliung: 1983). Machiavelli also felt strongly that religion was not enough to secure rule, nor did he believe that it was religion or gods-will that placed a Prince in his throne, more the decisions and actions of the prospective prince. It is unclear exactly to what extent Machiavelli saw Cesare Borgia as the ‘perfect prince’ (Raab: 1964) but he did use him in many examples of how a prince should act, “Of these two ways of becoming a prince, by prowess or by fortune, I want now to give two examples from living memory: namely Francesco Sforza and Cesare Borgia” (Machiavelli: 1532, 23). So Machiavelli made his detached dissection of politics. He removed the religious language used in contemporary discussions of statecraft. He stripped the art down to secular cause and effect. He wrote much, but in ‘The Prince’ Machiavelli modelled his hypothetical prince on Cesare Borgia and used him to show how the state should be run. It is for these reasons that Machiavelli’s name has become synonymous with ruthlessness, cunning, and bad faith but Machiavelli’s predicament and position that he found his state in that made it essential to find a solution that was practical rather than moral. It could be said that in trying to find a scientific solution to the problems of creating a strong leadership in Italy he was led by his moral views of nationalism and the power of man’s will over gods. In his views the ends validated the means (Hulliung: 1983). For some Machiavelli’s rejection of Utopianism is a great moral masterstroke, in a time when people still believe there is a solution to solve everyone’s problems perhaps Utopianism is doing more harm than good. Although the antithesis of this is that Machiavelli’s sole reason for abandoning the idea of the Republic and writing ‘The Prince’ was that he needed to regain favour with the Medici’s- it was a purely selfish work (Grant: 1997).

Machiavelli looks at the ideas of virtues as wholly scientific, and sees some things that are probably morally wrong as bad. In Chapter 15 (Machiavelli: 1532) he proposes to describe the truth about surviving as a monarch, rather than recommending lofty moral ideals. He describes those virtues that, on face value, we think a prince should possess. He concludes that some "virtues" will lead to a prince's destruction, whereas some "vices" allow him to survive. Indeed, the virtues, which we commonly praise in people, might lead to his downfall. Machiavelli states that it is essential to be praiseworthy but ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Machiavelli looks at the ideas of virtues as wholly scientific, and sees some things that are probably morally wrong as bad. In Chapter 15 (Machiavelli: 1532) he proposes to describe the truth about surviving as a monarch, rather than recommending lofty moral ideals. He describes those virtues that, on face value, we think a prince should possess. He concludes that some "virtues" will lead to a prince's destruction, whereas some "vices" allow him to survive. Indeed, the virtues, which we commonly praise in people, might lead to his downfall. Machiavelli states that it is essential to be praiseworthy but also to know how to do wrong because otherwise one could allow evil to destroy them, “I know everyone will agree that it would be most laudable if a Prince possessed all the qualities deemed to be good among those I have enumerated. But, because of conditions in the world, princes cannot have those qualities, or observe them completely.” (1532, 51). The perfect prince must be able to hide the use of necessary vices, but if he cannot, he need not worry, as Machiavelli believed that using these vices was more important in saving the kingdom than the prince’s reputation.

In chapter 16 he notes that we commonly think that it is best for a prince to have a reputation of being generous. However, if his generosity is done in secret, no one will know about it and he will be thought to be greedy. If it is done openly, then he risks going broke to maintain his reputation. He will then extort more money from his subjects and thus be hated. For Machiavelli, it is best for a prince to have a reputation for being miserly (Raab: 1964). Machiavelli anticipates examples one might give of generous monarchs who have been successful. He concludes that generosity should only be shown to soldiers with goods taken from a pillaged enemy city. This all sounds completely immoral and it is these middle chapters in ‘The Prince’ that earned Machiavelli his reputation, but it is his scientific look at the world that has led to this. Machiavelli looked at contemporary examples and made a purely scientific judgment on how best to run a kingdom/ principality regardless of the short-term affect on individuals. This is not because Machiavelli didn’t value human life but because he believed in order to achieve the strong rule which he desired he needed ruthlessness (Hulliung: 1983).

In Chapter 17 of ‘The Prince (1532) Machiavelli argues that it is better for a prince to be severe when punishing people rather than merciful. Severity through death sentences affects only a few, but it deters crimes, which affects many. Further, he argues, it is better to be feared than to be loved. However, the prince should avoid being hated, which he can easily accomplish by not confiscating the property of his subjects: "people more quickly forget the death of their father than the loss of their inheritance." (1953: 55). However Machiavelli does write that it is favourable for a prince to be seen as compassionate, although using Cesare Borgia as an examples he adds it is not entirely essential. Again this standpoint is entirely scientific and though Machiavelli writes how it is some times important for a prince to appear to have some moral grounding it is not beneficial for him to rule with them. Machiavelli advises his prince not to let his standards of personal morality fall apart. But personal morality is a luxury to be set-aside in the interests of the state. He tells the Prince not to casually violate his people's personal property and to be surgically accurate in using cruelty for the common good. Again and again he warns the Prince not be self-indulgent when he's unscrupulous in support of the state (Grant: 1997). Here Machiavelli is led by the moral desire for the prince to be able to look after his people, but in order to be able to do this the prince must be mean, because it is necessary for a prince to have money in order to fight a successful war.

Also it is necessary for Machiavelli’s prince to be cruel in order to keep crime low, he feels that a lack of cruelty would lead to disorder (Grant: 1997). Again this may be scientific but Machiavelli is trying to find a solution, which is for the greater good. Machiavelli’s reasoning behind his idea that it is better for a prince to be seen as cruel rather than compassionate, is not just so that the prince can retain power but also for the benefits of the citizens, as it is then possible for order to be established. Part of Machiavelli’s scientific approach may also rise due to his perception of human beings, he sees mankind as in general ungrateful, greedy cowards (Grant: 1997) and believes it is easier for a man to attack a prince he loves than it is to attack one he fears, “Men worry less about doing an injury to one who makes himself loved than to one who makes himself feared.” (Machiavelli: 1532, 54). Joseph Bronowski and Bruce Mazlish (1986) read The Prince and find a flawed scientist looking at the problem of running a state. Machiavelli's Prince (or prime minister or president) is obliged to be unscrupulous in the interests of the state -- lying, killing, torturing -- using religion to further the ends of the state.

Machiavelli argues that the prince should know how to be deceitful when it suits his purpose. When the prince needs to be deceitful, though, he must not appear that way. Indeed he must always exhibit five virtues in particular: mercy, honesty, humaneness, uprightness, and religiousness. Once again we see that Machiavelli while advocating some issues that may normally be seen as moral is approaching the situation from a scientific stance. ‘The prince is not able to act with honour but it must seem like he is doing so’, this appears to be Machiavelli’s message. He believes that it is mankind’s lack of trust for each other that requires this to be the case, he states, “So it follows that a prudent leader cannot, and must not, honour his word when it places him at a disadvantage and when the reasons for which he made his promise no longer exist. If all men were good, this precept would not be good, but because men are wretched creatures who would not keep their word to you, you need not keep your word to them.” (1532, 57). He goes further to say that it necessary (especially for a new prince) to deceive his citizens as to the nature of his personality (Raab: 1964). A prince must in Machiavelli’s scientific model appear to be merciful, trustworthy, religious, kind, and honest but it practice these supposed virtues would lead to a rulers downfall according to Machiavelli. The need for a prince to show himself with these virtues and others such as greatness, courage, and fortitude are, for Machiavelli, a scientific and tested way of protecting from being overthrown. Due to Machiavelli’s bleak view of mankind he believes that the biggest threat to a prince’s kingdom is from a conspiracy from within (Hulliung: 1983). And therefore the prince must avoid doing things, which will cause him to be hated. Not confiscating property, and not appearing greedy or irresolute accomplishes this. In fact, the best way to avoid being overthrown is to avoid being hated (but as we already discussed, being loved will not save a prince). Machiavelli’s disregard for any utopian ideals and his scientific manor leads him conclude that it is not possible for a prince to be hated by no-one but it must not be the case that the prince is hated by all (Hulliung: 1983). “…and against a man who is highly esteemed conspiracy is difficult, and open attack is difficult, provided he is recognised as a great man, who is respected by is subjects.” (1532, 59). For Machiavelli it is not immoral for a prince to do bad things in order to satisfy the needs of those that hate him, in fact it is bad sense to do otherwise. He also believes that a prince’s most important subjects are those with the most power, in most cases the army, this is because they have the ability to oust him if they so wished (Bronowski and Mazlish: 1986).

And so Machiavelli forged a science of ends over means. Yet, even as he wrote, Borgia's rule was coming apart just because it was unscrupulous. Any prince serves at the pleasure of the people, whether he realizes it or not. The failure of Machiavelli's scientific model lay in its naive acceptance of apparent truth, and perhaps the apparent exclusive of moral beliefs from politics. Machiavelli’s work is what many have characterised as observational science of politics (Hulliung: 1983), and it is for this reason that ‘The Prince’ seems to be without morals, Machiavelli excluded morals and god, and looked at the situation as it was then trying to decide on the best plan of action for a prince regardless of any other thought. Machiavelli advises his prince not to let his standards of personal morality fall apart. But personal morality is a luxury to be set-aside in the interests of the state. He tells the Prince not to casually violate his people's personal property and to be surgically accurate in using cruelty for the common good. Again and again he warns the Prince not be self-indulgent when he's unscrupulous in support of the state. Machiavelli’s theories and ideas are based on his own scientific principles but in doing so he is not rejecting all morals from politics but it was necessary to use a scientific approach for him at the time. Not only did he want to explain the politics of becoming a prince scientifically while giving advice but, there is also evidence to suggest that he wanted to endear himself to the Medici’s, any moral objections to there style of rule would not have been taken well.