The Two-Part Morality of Machiavellian Politics

Authors Avatar

Title: The Two-Part Morality of Machiavellian Politics

        Machiavelli’s, The Prince, is spellbinding because through it he appears to convert ordinary life from a moral battle that is mired in guilt and controlled by a higher power, into an ordinary (albeit well structured) game. In our assigned textbook, Isaiah Berlin, when interpreting Machiavelli (Adams 206-235), pushes for a higher purpose on this game: the good of the state. However, in the same text, Ernst Cassirer demonstrates that the game is purely for the good of the ruler (Adams 155-169). My interpretation of Machiavelli and the focus of this paper is that Machiavelli seems to have a two-part morality in which the princes act for their own good in a world where other men are bound by traditional morality. The latter are not wholly subjected to the former, however; because they comprise the majority, the prince cannot risk incurring the people’s wrath. My argument is in alignment with the notion put forth by Friedrich Nietzsche (Adams 251-255) in the same text.

        As per Berlin, Machiavelli’s morality primarily references society and not the individual; it is an extension of the Greek concept of polis––that from mankind’s own communal purposes are derived the other values and principles (such as ethics) (Adams 213). Berlin states that the “communal purpose” (as per Machiavelli) is about achieving the ultimate goal: winning “the game of skill” (Adams 214) through whatever means necessary. Berlin believes that for Machiavelli to accept—and even promote—the use of force by rulers as a means to the end, is a result of his belief that force is the only way to achieve the moral end proper to man; in order for the ideal of a perfect patria to be achieved, the ruler must be a physician, ready to burn, cauterize, and amputate (Adams 218) anything that may cause the state to weaken. If the sole goal of society is to promote the welfare of the patria, the sacrifice of a few individuals for the sake of the community is not only necessary, but also justified and “normal” (Adams 224).

        Machiavellian morality conflicts with the commonly accepted set of values, the Platonic-Hebraic-Christian view. Christian morality, as described by Berlin, is, “where the source and criterion of value are the word of God, or eternal reason, or some inner sense or knowledge of good and evil, right and wrong, voices which speak directly to the individual conscience with absolute authority” (Adams 213). Machiavelli’s rejection of this set of values stems from its basis on the concept of an existing “good and evil”; he rejects this concept, Berlin argues, not as being flawed in theory, but as inapplicable to the conditions of reality—of crime, brutality and generally despicable acts that are the result of human nature (Adams 216).

Join now!

        Although Berlin correctly comprehends the need for force in politics, he does not understand all its limitations. Machiavelli states that in deciding when to use brutality and force, the prince must always consider the overall, and more importantly, the immediate effects of his actions on the people. He restates again and again the importance of not being hated by the people—if the citizens don’t support the prince, what is the basis of his power? Even though sacrifices must be made for the overall good of society (according to Berlin), if the prince’s actions are too harsh and do not cause ...

This is a preview of the whole essay