Machiavellian Ethics

At Issue

The ideas of Niccolò Machiavelli have been associated with the darker side of politics. To be Machiavellian has for centuries meant to be willing to do anything in the quest for power. Machiavelli has been viewed as a political devil, advising leaders to embrace the arts of treachery, force, and cruelty in order to be successful. These notions derive almost wholly from his work The Prince (1513), and although they have persisted, they are exaggerations of the substance of Machiavelli’s ideas. Machiavelli also wrote plays, poetry, and histories. His most expansive work was Discourses on the First Ten Books of Titus Livius (1636). In it, the breadth of Machiavelli’s political thinking may be seen, and especially his high regard for republican government.

History

For good or ill, it was The Prince that, as Count Carlo Sforza said, “made Machiavelli famous and infamous.” Although it is unfair to say that Machiavelli was a preacher of treachery and evil, there is some truth in these perceptions of Machiavellian ethics. Moreover, there is an inheritance from Machiavelli’s ideas that has deeply influenced political thinking into the modern era. Because of this influence of The Prince, it must be the focus of any discussion of Machiavellian ethics.

Machiavelli was a citizen of the city of Florence in Re-naissance Italy and a diplomat in the Florentine Republic from 1498 to 1512. In 1512, the Republic fell to the dynastic family of the Medici. Machiavelli was tried for treason and exiled to San Casciano. In exile, he devoted his life to writing, yet he sought a return to public life. Around 1513, Machiavelli wrote The Prince and dedicated it to Lorenzo di Medici. Although they had been enemies in the past, Machiavelli hoped that Lorenzo would be impressed by the work and employ his skilled advice. Machiavelli’s work went unnoticed in his lifetime, but the succinct power of The Prince, a condensation of Machiavelli’s thought regarding rulership, outlasted both its purpose and the Medici.

The Prince

If it has been unfair to say that The Prince and its interpretations accurately portray the depth of Machiavelli’s thinking, it is equally fair to say that he meant every word of what he wrote. In The Prince, Machiavelli states that he will not speak of republics, for here he has a single purpose. The Prince discusses how principalities are won, held, and lost. It is a primer that tells how a single ruler may gain and maintain power. Machiavelli emphasized how power is garnered in a corrupt and dangerous political environment such as the one that existed in Renaissance Italy. In such treacherous times, a prince required special skills to control the state. This, the purpose of The Prince, accounts for the work’s narrow focus and tone.

Machiavelli’s Ideas

Machiavelli’s attention to the mechanics of government in The Prince made political and military affairs paramount. He separated these from religious, moral, or social considerations, except as these might be politically expedient. The purpose of the state is to preserve power, and the one criterion of evaluation is success. Machiavelli was indifferent regarding whether a policy was brutal or treacherous, but he was aware that such qualities might affect the success of policy. Hence, Machiavelli preferred that policy be perceived as honorable and fair, but he emphasized that one should never risk failure for moral considerations.

In The Prince, Machiavelli openly discussed the advantages of skillful immorality. He was not immoral; instead, he advised princes to embrace political amorality, which encouraged virtuous behavior among subjects but accepted a rulership that transcended morality. This double standard for rulers and subjects is a hallmark of Machiavellian ethics. Machiavelli never advised cruelty for its own sake, but attempted political objectivity. This unabashed objectivity did not make him a devil, but he did exaggerate the quest for power and confuse the objectives of politics with the game itself.

Principles

Machiavelli’s ideas were precursors to many modern political attitudes. He addressed human nature, rulership, the character of the state, and the role of popular government. His observations about skillful policy were based on the assumption that the primary human motivations are selfish and egoistic. Machiavelli assumed that government derives from human weakness and the need to control the conflict that grows out of human self-interest. People are naturally aggressive, and the role of the state is to provide security.

This perspective on human nature led Machiavelli to emphasize the role of lawgiver and ruler. He argued that moral and civic virtues grow out of law and government; they are not inherent in human nature. The ruler represents the law and implements morals but is above morality. For this reason, the ruler must be both a “lion and a fox.” When necessary, a ruler must disguise the real intent of policy by controlling outward appearances. At other times, a ruler will have no recourse but to use brute force. Force must be used discreetly and effectively, but the ruler cannot flinch when the preservation of the state is at stake. Machiavelli argued that a ruler should be both loved and feared but stated that it is difficult to have it both ways. Thus, if one cannot be both loved and feared, it is better to be feared that to be loved. The ruler must have the virtues of strength and vision, and the flexibility to adapt to the whims of fortune.

Machiavelli was a national patriot, and he defined the state in terms of a personal identification of the citizens with the state. This idea accounts for Machiavelli’s preference for popular government, whenever practical. He disliked noble classes because they were divisive and because noble class interests often clashed with those of the state. Machiavelli disdained the use of mercenary armies and encouraged a standing army of citizens who were willing to die for their country. Machiavelli believed that the goal of the state was to preserve national integrity and property, and he suggested that no state can survive without popular support.

Machiavelli was a realist, a skeptic, a patriot, a populist, and an adviser to tyrants, and his vision profoundly influenced political thinking. Even the meaning of the state as a sovereign institution appears to have originated with him. Unfortunately, Machiavellian ethics makes power the primary goal of politics, while moral, economic, and social forces are only factors to be controlled in the power game.

Bibliography

Berlin, Isaiah. “The Question of Machiavelli.” New York Review of Books 17 (November 4, 1971): 20-37.

Cassirer, Ernst. The Myth of the State. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1973.

Gilbert, Felix. Machiavelli and Guicciardini. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1965.

Machiavelli, Niccolò. The Discourses. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1952.

Machiavelli, Niccolò. The Prince. Edited and translated by Thomas G. Bergin. Arlington Heights, Ill.: AHM, 1947.