Niccolo Machiavelli's ground-breaking book The Prince is a widely read piece of literature, influencing countless leaders across the globe and throughout history leading scholars to declare Machiavelli "the teacher of princes". A book with such an impact must not be overlooked, it is imperative that we have an adequate understanding of the present relevance, and validity of such an important and historic text.
It is my intention to explore the modern philosophical, societal, and political implications of Niccolo Machiavelli's magnum opus
The Prince. . Such an inquiry gives us insight into the contemporary value and relevance of such an important piece of literature. It is my intent to divide this inquiry into three parts. The first section (I) will be a short examination into what exactly is the concept Machiavelli is attempting to "teach" us in The Prince. Without fully understanding the concept being discussed it may be difficult to determine what lessons are of value. The second section (II) is devoted to investigating the validity of The Prince. If we found that what Machiavelli wrote is meaningless there would be little point in investigating the lessons he gives. In the Third section (III) the character type of the prince is tested in its philosophical and practical prowess against that of other concepts of leadership and against real-world demands. And to tie this discourse together, following third section I enter into a list of the primary relevant points offered in The Prince. It is essentially a list of the "lessons" that can be learned if we accept Machiavelli as a relevant and valuable source.
__________ {I} __________
In The Prince there runs one main concept that is prevalent throughout the text, which consequently sets the stage for the other pieces of advice offered by Machiavelli. This concept is in regards to the character of a prince, who in ideal form is cunning, savvy, sharp, and amoral.
"Therefore one must be a fox in order to recognize traps and a lion to frighten off wolves"
Albeit metaphorical, the above quote taken directly from The Prince depicts the ruthless and opportunistic nature promoted by Machiavelli. Writer Richard Osborne sums up the message of the Prince quite well:
"Machiavelli was just concerned to analyse how anyone could grab power, justify it, and then hang on to it… In fact any means was acceptable as long as it was effective".
In Niccolo's letter to Lorenzo dé Medici which opens The Prince Machiavelli summarizes his work in the book as being about "how princes should rule". Consequently we can confidently state that Machiavelli's description of a Prince is his principle concept;
since in The Prince
how a prince should rule is dictated by the character traits set out by Machiavelli that are developed and explained throughout the entirety of the text. The rest of the concepts are what we could call considered judgments, meaning they are subsequent to the principle concept:
To be the most successful prince, one must be cunning, savvy, sharp, and amoral.
Any reader of The Prince quickly realizes that Machiavelli's prince is a character of reality- what man does. Whereas the majority of other political-philosophical texts especially contemporary to Machiavelli focused on the morality of the character- what man ought to do.
This distinction between normative ethics and what we could call objective ethics
has historically been the focal point of the bulk of criticism against The Prince. The historic disapproval of Machiavelli's prince is definitely still a valid criticism- it is (as said before) the principle concept which means that if we can falsify the principle, find it incoherent, or find it invalid we can declare everything that follows it to be extraneous. This means that although the other points are important it should be evident that a majority of our analysis should be focused on the main concept, since it is the foundation for Machiavelli's entire argument in The Prince. Thus it is our first goal to analyze what exactly is being said, since there may be an inconsistency within the statement itself.
__________ {II} __________
Machiavelli claims that such a character type will be more successful on the grounds that being of this sort allows a prince to do whatever is the most expedient, which gives a prince a huge advantage over others since others will be bogged down primarily by moral concerns, or could hesitate to act, or may act in a way that alienates that leader from his people and/or supporters. If one adopts the character of Machiavelli's prince one responds to situations based on what will either promote, or sustain one's power. A leader concerned with the morals of his actions will become caught up in appeasing the people. Legitimately devoting time to religion, prayer, and morals (instead of merely pretending) will result in a failure to act expediently thus forfeiting an opportunity.
There is little argument that we can bring against the claim that being more "political" or pragmatic (or in the modern terminology practicing Realpolitik) has a higher chance of success; simply observing the world of power and leadership should make one realize that a person who acts with wit and speed is far more likely to accomplish something than someone who bases their concerns in moral and virtuous behavior. However where we do find a coherent argument against the prince is in whether or not it is acceptable to be amoral.
If it is the case that the characteristics of the prince are immoral it follows that it is wrong on all accounts and such practice should be avoided. This is also the basis for whether or not Machiavelli's prince should still be considered relevant and valid, since if the argument for the character of the prince fails it follows that we should declare The Prince to be no longer relevant and/or valid.
Plato's character of a philosopher-king is guided by the internal appetite of one's virtues towards the Good- whereas a prince is free from the restrictions of "virtuous" behavior. Monotheists would declare that God gave us a code of morals that should be followed and any contrary action is "sin"- but a prince can circumvent these rules when convenient whilst pretending to adhere to them. Kantian ethics state that morals should be based on a categorical imperative wherein morals are universalized i.e.: I do not lie because I do not want to be lied to, I do not murder because I do not want to be murdered- a sharp prince recognizes that if everyone else believes that they should always tell the truth, it would be highly advantageous to be a skillful liar.
To be able to prove that Machiavelli's amoral prince is also immoral we need a system of morality that can show The Prince's immorality on adequate grounds. This is only way to sufficiently disprove or discredit Machiavelli's prince; one must show that the prince violates an absolute moral doctrine. An Absolute moral doctrine is necessary since any other major response to the prince is a pluralistic one (pluralism being the view that "all views are equally true"
or equally valid). An absolute moral doctrine escapes this conundrum of pluralism since it (if true) is based on firm principles that make other viewpoints incoherent or obsolete. An absolute moral doctrine is something like the ten-commandments where adherence to the moral rules is judged by a power of utmost authority (God in the case of the ten-commandments).
The trouble is proving the absolute nature of such a moral doctrine; to do so requires (i) proving that the absolute moral judge exists, (ii) that the moral code is non-contradictory, and (iii) that the moral rules are relevant.
Technically the burden of proof lies with those who say Machiavelli's prince is immoral on the grounds that a prince's actions are in opposition to the rules set out by the absolute moral doctrine; however it would be unfair to leave the argument here since it is worthwhile to investigate absolutism on behalf of those who adhere to it, and for the benefit of this discourse.
As said earlier for us to accept a moral doctrine as being absolute (which would then potentially show The Prince's immorality) we need three components (i) that the moral authority exists, (ii) the moral rules are non-contradictory, and (iii) that the moral rules are relevant. Why these three points? (i) without a moral authority there is nothing to make the doctrine absolute, (ii) if the rules are contradictory to each other they are also incoherent since it is impossible to have (A) and ~ (A) as doctrines simultaneously, and (iii) because if the rules are irrelevant, say like a moral doctrine for dogs- it becomes the case that the doctrine is useless for the purposes we desire.
(i) Proving the existence of the moral authority capable of commanding an absolute moral doctrine is by far the most difficult task, and perhaps the only part that needs any investigation since points (ii) and (iii) depend on the validity of point (i), but also because points (ii) and (iii) are highly situational and may differ between various moral doctrines (different moral doctrines say different things- this is non-controversial) whereas point (i) is the same problem throughout. The problem of point (i) is simple: how do we prove that the moral authority we appeal to is in fact a legitimate source of authority?
If we accept the ten-commandments as being the moral doctrine for Christians, then we can say that Christians believe that God is the source of the authority that is necessary to make the ten-commandments absolute. However this belief is hugely problematic; firstly the ten-commandments are contained in the bible, which is the supposed "word of God" which is how the link between doctrine and authority is drawn. However the bible is also the only source of consistent proof towards the existence of the moral authority aka: God. This is a huge problem because it is completely circular, falling prey to Agrippa's skeptical mode of circularity- which consequently makes the claim invalid- or at least improbable.
Christian belief is not the only absolute moral doctrine that falls prey to the problem of having an inadequate basis for their moral authority- in fact almost all absolutist beliefs suffer equally to this problem- which brings to light a second problem: If several doctrines claim themselves to be moral absolutes how do we discern which one is actually the moral absolute (if a moral absolute is true- it is absolute, which means we can infer that no other doctrines are true, hence our problem)? However I do not intend to tackle this question at this time, since it is of little value to the rest of the argument and would require an immense amount of discourse to find a solution.
It must also be brought to our attention that if the argument against Machiavelli's prince through moral absolutes fails to discredit the prince, it is also the case that an argument against the prince based on divine command theory also fails since the two are intertwined. Hobbes' divine command theory wherein a ruler's right to rule is derived from holy approval is dependent upon the existence of God as the moral authority which we showed to be improbable and/or insufficient, and/or false.
The final (and perhaps weakest) argument against the validity of The Prince is that the text should not be taken seriously since there is a chance that Machiavelli wrote The Prince as a satirical-topical piece, as they say tongue-in-cheek. Although it may be appealing to dump the concept of the prince on said grounds it is highly unfair to do so. Even though the possibility stands that Machiavelli lacked sincerity in writing The Prince, it does not follow that the internal concept becomes robbed of value or validity. To realize this point I remind the reader of the philosophical position of skepticism. It is a practical impossibility to adopt the ideology of skepticism (the consequences of adopting it are immense), however philosophers realize that the argument has value and has been a major topic of discussion since its inception by Descartes. Secondly even if a linkage emerged that allowed us to declare The Prince invalid on the basis of Machiavelli's insincerity, we would simply re-work the subject to be Napoleon's philosophical concept; since his characteristics matched that of Machiavelli's prince almost seamlessly. Point being is that Machiavelli did not invent the concept of a realist political-philosophy, he discovered it.
I now intend to rest this part of my argument here since it seems that I have tackled the primary sources of philosophical opposition towards Machiavelli's prince. To effectively bring criticism against the character of the prince, an immense amount of philosophical (and perhaps even empirical) work needs to be done.
__________ {III} __________
To be the most successful prince, one must be cunning, savvy, sharp, and amoral.
The above statement can be taken as a rough summary of Machiavelli's main concept (see section one (I)) in The Prince. To realize some modern value of this concept it is beneficial to measure it against other concepts about how a leader should act.
Plato's Philosopher-king aims at a certain virtue, specifically wisdom. In contrast if we can ascribe any "virtue" to the prince we could arguably say that it is expedience. The other main character type that we could introduce into our analysis of value could be that of the moral leader. This character type is similar to Plato's king in the sense that both are aimed at a chief good; however the difference becomes quite clear when we realize that the moral leader's only aim is to follow morals (specifically Judeo-Christian morals for our discourse) whereas the "wise" king may need to go beyond or over moral restrictions in his decision making. In that sense Plato's king shares a similar amoral attitude with Machiavelli's prince; however key differences do remain and through them we can measure the modern "successfulness" of each character type.
Primary Attributes & Characteristics
| Machiavelli's Prince | Plato's Philosopher-King | Moral leader (Kantian ethics, Judeo-Christian tradition) |
Expedience | Wisdom | Moral rectitude | |
Amoral/ immoral | Amoral | Adherence to morals | |
Knowledge is for gain | Knowledge is for betterment | Knowledge is irrelevant to moral adherence | |
Focus is on personal gain | Focus is on social "perfection" | Focus is on personal salvation | |
People are pawns | People are pawns | People are either Moralites, or heretics | |
Although there is undoubtedly a huge variety of character types we could look at- I make it the case that these are the three primary versions whilst others are just variations of these. | |||
It should also be noted that in our contemporary context the term leader (to which all three premises apply) can be extended from the tradition form to denote anyone in a position of power. This means that the term "leader" encompasses positions of power not only in politics, but especially in business and any other possible "leadership" circumstance.
Keeping in mind the various aspects of the three character types we can effectively "measure" each one against the others. It first must be realized that even if we conditionally accept the main premise of section two (II), it becomes the case that no one of the three positions has any clear initial advantage. If we had managed to accept the premise of section two (II) we could state that both the virtuous leader and moral leader have a clear advantage over the prince. This is based on the notion that if "the Good" of the virtuous character, or God of the moral character were clearly existent, they would be adequate sources of moral authority which would render the prince immoral and/or invalid. However because we realized that this is a highly problematic premise we must either reject or at least conditionally reject the notion of a moral authority.
The implications are immense since if there is no direct moral authority (conditional or total rejection) then we have no reason to include the moral character in our investigation, since all of his rationale is based on the moral authority's existence. However it would be unfair to so easily discard of the moral character, and also since we may have only conditionally rejected the moral authority. However the same does not apply to the virtuous leader. The "Good" to which the virtuous character is aimed needs not to be existent unlike the moral character. Although Plato suggests that the Good is a somewhat spiritual or other-worldly thing (Plato describes the Good as being in "the world of the mind and things of thought"), it is an unnecessary connection for the virtuous character. "Good" can exist independently of a spiritual form, in fact being good, or aiming to do good are both perfectly rational concepts in a world only constituted of material. Either way Plato's king is undeniably a rational prototype for a modern leader.
In both the world of government and the world of business (the two major leadership roles) it is generally the case that Machiavelli's prince holds an enormous advantage over opponents. It is from observation of contemporary and classical events that Machiavelli discerned and described what characteristics where most often successful. A prince can pretend to be virtuous and moral without devoting much time to the subject. The prince can influence religious leaders and media outlets to portray him as he wishes. The moral and virtuous leaders are somewhat locked in to their beliefs and limit them in their range and effect. The prince is always out to build up his power-base, whereas or other two leaders are not supposed to care much about it, since moral adherence or virtue adherence limits their theoretical reach. The prototype of the prince has been tried and tested throughout history.
Machiavelli discusses at length the historic use of the various character traits he promotes:
"I say that the most outstanding are Moses, Cyrus, Romulus, Theseus, and others like them".
Machiavelli's own contemporary example is that of Cesare Borgia who was as writer Bryan Magee put it:
"(A) clever, ambitious, and unscrupulous opportunist in love with political power. But he was an able ruler … cited by Machiavelli as the model of the ideal prince".
As we progress through history rulers who seem to follow Machiavelli's foot-steps become more and more prevalent. Anyone familiar with the rise of Napoleon may directly see a Machiavellian type character- which is only furthered by claims that Napoleon had his personal copy of The Prince with him upon capture following the battle of Waterloo.
It should follow that being a prince is a likely way to guarantee success. However it must be noted that such success is entirely materialistic in nature. As said before to prove the existence of some moral code capable of penetrating into the modern world and refuting Machiavelli's premises is an extremely difficult task. But if it was successful or even just highly probable it would render much of Machiavelli's points irrelevant. But again the point is troublesome, and any more evaluation between the materialistic prototype of a prince and that of Plato's king and of a moral leader relies upon the further development of that same premise.
Although I haven't definitively proven the righteousness of Machiavelli's prince, it certainly should be the case that I've shown the character type to be relevant and valid in modern society. Therefore it seems fitting to begin investigation into what value, or in other terms what lessons can be learned from Machiavelli. To fully realize the value I intend to synthesize Machiavelli's main and relevant points:
The Main relevant lessons of The Prince.
- The Prince is a guide to how a person can best gain, and keep power.
- The best way to guarantee success is to be a prince: cunning, savvy, sharp, and amoral.
- The most successful means of gaining and holding power is by doing whatever is the most expedient
- As Bob Dylan rather eloquently put it:
"For he who gets hurt, will be he who has stalled".
- The best way to guarantee success is to be a prince: cunning, savvy, sharp, and amoral.
- A Prince must always be aware of his reputation.
- One must guarantee that public perception remains in one's favor.
- The rationales behind such actions are to safeguard the prince against internal threats arising from dissent and contempt.
- The kind of actions that a prince may need to undertake range greatly, from instilling fear in one's people- to the effect that potential dissidents are scared out of action, to pretending to act religiously or righteously as to make citizens believe one is a moral and/or benevolent character.
- People should "either be pampered or crushed, because they can get revenge for small injuries but not for grievous ones".
- In modern Democratic society, as well as in publicly-traded corporations reputation is key to survival. During any election campaign (take America's recent election) smear tactics are the key element. From referring to president-elect Barak Obama as "Osama" to investigating every little piece of dirt on every candidate. The same goes in business where in many large corporations the CEO is chosen by the board of directors; which means that as Machiavelli claimed: a prince should "determine to avoid anything which will make him hated and despised".
- "Against a man who is highly esteemed conspiracy is difficult, and open attack is difficult, provided he is recognized as a great man, who is respected by his subjects"
- A Prince should personally lead and maintain a strong military, should avoid mercenaries and auxiliaries- and should arm one's citizens.
- This is to secure one's nation against foreign threats since a local military being lead personally by their "Prince" would undoubtedly have higher morale when engaged in battle.
- Arming the citizens creates the situation wherein when an invading force comes it faces the ongoing threat of guerilla warfare and civilian resistance in favor of the prince who armed them. Machiavelli makes reference to the Swiss who have armed their citizens (which they still do) and as a result of that factor Switzerland has never been destabilized nor conquered.
- Arming the citizens creates the situation wherein when an invading force comes it faces the ongoing threat of guerilla warfare and civilian resistance in favor of the prince who armed them. Machiavelli makes reference to the Swiss who have armed their citizens (which they still do) and as a result of that factor Switzerland has never been destabilized nor conquered.
- The points regarding military are fairly easy for a government to understand, however in a business sense it can be murky. However I do offer one interpretation:
- A business leader should seek to "arm" his employees by means of adequate resources.
- Having a strong local defense (like a militia) could mean a public relations committee (both exist to defend their nation or company).
- The avoidance of mercenaries and auxiliaries means the avoidance of hiring external firms to cover certain business aspects, for example hiring private accountants instead of having an internal accounting department.
- A business leader should seek to "arm" his employees by means of adequate resources.
- During conflict a Prince should always choose a side because:
- If your allies win, you benefit whether or not you have more power than they have.
- If you are more powerful, then your allies are under your command; if your allies are stronger, they will always feel a certain obligation to you for your help.
- If your side loses, you still have an ally in the loser.
- If your allies win, you benefit whether or not you have more power than they have.
- A Prince should seek to have an intelligent counsel and personal staff.
- Having intelligent people as one's advisors makes a person seem more intelligent also.
- A Prince must make sure that the ideas of his advisors and his own are heard and properly debated- as to not cause contention and to keep both advisors and subjects loyal.
- A Prince should seek to avoid flatterers (yes-men).
- Having intelligent people as one's advisors makes a person seem more intelligent also.
If we accept, or at least conditionally accept the premises presented in sections one, two, and three, it should follow that the points I have just finished listing are of high value in our modern society.
On a smaller and less important note, it should be realized that there may be one small problem with the acceptance of Machiavelli's concepts. With modern communications and globalized culture the ideas of Machiavelli are wide-spread. If everyone in positions of power, and everyone vying for those positions is aware of the methods the prince it may have the potential to dilute and lessen the amount of success to be had, since if others are aware of your strategy they are more likely to counteract you, or work against you. This point may have some validity however it does not steal from the philosophical value of the concepts of Machiavelli.
---------------------
Machiavelli's words which were written during the heart of the Renaissance are still as eminent and valuable as they were some five-hundred years ago. Rather concisely Machiavelli pointed out that politics (and society in general) was and still is of a very corrupt and dirty nature. Consequently a person who can fully harness the energy and attitudes of such a way of life is bound to achieve some success. That was what we saw in the first section, Machiavelli's formulation of the ideal candidate for success in a murky world. In the second section it was realized that the candidate known as the prince is a relevant and valid character; and in all respects is difficult to render erroneous. In the third section Machiavelli's prince was weighed off against other prototypes for leadership, again in an attempt to further discern the value of Machiavelli's character-type. And finally we analyzed the "lessons" that Machiavelli gave us through The Prince. If we manage to accept, even in some small amount the various premises of each section, it should be evident that Machiavelli's prince is a concept to be reckoned with. And as long as the opportunity exists it should follow that people (whether knowingly or not) will undoubtedly fight for positions of power using the tactics laid out to us by Niccolo Machiavelli.
Word Count: 4398
Works Cited
Blackburn, Simon. Dictionary of Philosophy. Toronto: Oxford University Press, 2005.
Dylan, Bob. The times they are a-changin'. 1963.
Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince. Toronto, Ontario: Penguin Books Canada Ltd., 2003.
Magee, Bryan. The story of Philosophy. New York: Dorling Kindersley Ltd., 2001.
Osborne, Richard. Philosophy for beginners. Danbury: For Beginners LLC, 1992.
Plato. Great Dialogues of Plato. Toronto: New American Library, 2008.
