Machiavellis The Prince is merely an exercise in cynicism. Discuss.

Authors Avatar by arnoldmutungi (student)

‘Machiavelli’s The Prince is merely an exercise in cynicism’. Discuss.

Distrust, scepticism and pessimism are words often associated with cynicism. Niccolo Machiavelli’s ‘The Prince’ is said to have brought him a ‘reputation of amoral cynicism’, accumulating critics from a range of religious and ideological backgrounds. This can be deduced to the bleak view of human nature projected by ‘The Prince’ at various points throughout the book. Themes of cruelty, sceptical views on virtue and realism have helped fuel this reputation. Given the context in which Machiavelli was writing, it is arguable that these measures were the most pragmatic way to maintain a stable principality during Italian upheaval and political conflict in the early 16th century. While those who come across ‘The Prince’ may identify the book as merely an exercise in cynicism, it is more practical to assume ‘The Prince’ was ‘desperate remedy for the desperate ills of Italy.’ 

Machiavelli’s view on human nature in ‘The Prince’ is arguably the core of his cynical reputation. He describes man as ‘ungrateful, fickle, false, cowardly and covetous’, clearly indicating a pessimistic view of mankind. Those who believe that ‘The Prince’ is merely an exercise in cynicism would agree that it is this perception of humanity that is used as a justification for the immoral tactics suggested by Machiavelli. However, throughout his book, Machiavelli uses empirical evidence by drawing from past leaderships to support his advice on maintaining power. Therefore, his views on mankind are more likely to be observational than explained by deep-rooted cynicism. The traits described by Machiavelli are not as revolutionary as critics make out; people have been observed as cruel and selfish in the ancient world as they are today. Instead, he is just looking at humanity in a realistic way, in order to achieve an ends to his means – the creation of a stable principality. This view is reinforced by Kenneth L. Deutch who confirms that ‘recognising human’s depraved nature is the first step in attaining power and creating a realistic political structure.’  It is easy for critics to dismiss Machiavelli’s view on human nature as merely cynicism, without taking into account the main goal of ‘The Prince’, which aims to explain human nature in order to create a secure princedom.

Machiavelli is distinguished from other classical philosophers as ‘The Prince’ displays a cynical view towards characteristics which can be considered virtuous. Virtue promoted by that of Aristotle and Plato usually accounts for traits of honesty, magnanimity and virtuosity. Previous philosophers tended to reiterate the need for princes to take on these traits to achieve the highest form of their profession. However, ‘The Prince’ advices that these traits are not the most pragmatic way to achieve and maintain power – the main aim of Machiavelli. Even though Machiavelli acknowledges the advantages of virtue, he believes that ‘a man who wishes to act entirely upon his professions of virtue soon meets with what destroys him.’ This correlates with his view of human nature which viewed as more realistic than the previous philosophers discussed. The princely values, as described above, can only maintain power in a world where the people who are ruled are virtuous, however we do not live in a world of saints. Machiavelli believes we should create systems excluding ‘prefigured meanings’ and ‘implicit teleology.’ Therefore, a realist approach of ruling, which sometimes includes incorporating villainous characteristics, is the only feasible way to achieve power with a realist approach of human nature. He uses the example of Alexander the sixth, whom he suggests achieved greatness by appearing to be virtuous, whilst being able to act otherwise if necessary. Instead of virtue, ‘The Prince’ suggests characteristics such as prowess, craftiness and even dishonesty are needed in order to become a strong ruler. Given Italy’s external threats and internal conflict for overall control in the early 16th century, virtu, Machiavelli argued, was needed in order to succeed, not only control domestic affairs, but to maintain a position of strength as a state. This shows that the criticism of princely virtues were not just acts of cynicism, but an explanation as to why they would not prove sufficient in maintaining a state, given Machiavelli’s realist view of human nature.

Join now!

Although there are identifiers in Machiavelli’s book which show some means of action which can be considered amoral or even immoral, it is often easy to forget that the cruelty enforced was in order to work towards a stable end. Levi Strauss states that the easiest way to assess Machiavelli’s advice was ‘the old fashion and simple opinion that Machiavelli was a teacher of evil’. This assessment does not take into account two important variables, the first being the historical content on which ‘The Prince’ is based, and the necessity of cruelty to maintain a stable princedom. The latter part ...

This is a preview of the whole essay