Overall, The Prince seems to be simply an ancient version of "The Idiot's Guide to being a Monarch". Dealing almost exclusively with questions of efficacy and expediency, Machiavelli ignores questions about whether the advocated policies are "moral" or "immoral." "just" or "unjust."
Is there a moral standard for "the prince"? What might it be? How do/would we know what it was? Is the moral standard for a prince different than the moral standard for a subject? What might the implications be for the answer(s) you offer?
48 comments:
As far as a moral standard, or the basis on which decisions are made, Machiavelli seems to assume a standard of "Do what keeps you in power." All of his statements are centered arount this idea, whether it be accomplished by subduing, abusing, or placating citizens or neighbors.
This sort of thinking can only work when it is a pince being considered. Only a prince has the absolute authority to put into practice such ruthlessness, as anyone in a republic would quickly be removed from office.
How 'bout the Bible? Can Machiavelli be adapted by a Christian king/ruler? Or does Machiavellian politics require that one violate God's Law?
I think there is a certain moral standard that "the Prince," and any other person must follow. Without standards there is no order in lives or society. The Prince is the leader of many people; they follow his example. There has to be a moral standard that he must follow to maintain "healthy" use of power, and to keep his power as long as he can. Whatever the Prince has to do to keep his power and even gain more is what he bases his moral standard upon,even though keeping what's best in mind for his people will lead him to a successful rule. The moral standard for the prince than that of a subject is slightly different, because they play different roles in life. Although they have moral standards that may be similiar, with more power comes more responsibility.
The kind of standard that the prince applies to himself would not work for everyone. If everyone was doing what they wanted to get more power, there would never be any structure, and things would be chaotic. There would be no sense of unity among people, and their selfshiness would just lead to abusing power, and everyone making decisions based on what they feel.
Oops ... I mis-read the original question. But now you all know you're being watched :-)
Through "The Prince," Machiavelli tries to avoid morality at all costs. He lays out before the readers a plan that will be most effecient and most importantly, will work. Some of his solutions seem controversial, such as complete domination of the defeated nations. He never addresses what "would be best" for the inhabitants. This is perhaps why "The Prince" is so popular. Its options always work and do not bring much argument.
Is there a moral standard for "the prince"?
Perhaps we can use Christ as the standard for "the prince" because He is the "Prince of Peace" (Isaiah 9:6). Using Christ as a standard, a prince must strive for attributes such as justice, love, humility, faithfulness, etc.
wgm4 said...
Is there a moral standard for "the prince"?
Perhaps we can use Christ as the standard for "the prince" because He is the "Prince of Peace"
OK -- sounds nice. . . but what might this mean practically? Come up with a morally difficult choice that a prince might face and tell us what the prince should do in light of "what Jesus would do."
There is a moral standard for a prince or for any ruler of a country but Machiavelli's standard for princes leaves no room for that. It is based on pure technical practicality; no emotion or morality is considered. A ruler concerned with doing what is right can certainly apply Machiavelli's principles but must alter them to what his conscience and personal moral laws command.
I believe that the moral standard for the prince is that he has to do whatever he can to protect his people and his position as a prince. I think that the moral standard for the prince is different than that of a subject because a subject is limited to the power of the law while a princes is above the law, he is the law and because of this he has a different standard because he is in control of thousands of peoples lives.
Is there a moral standard for "the prince"?
Perhaps we can use Christ as the standard for "the prince" because He is the "Prince of Peace" (Isaiah 9:6). Using Christ as a standard, a prince must strive for attributes such as justice, love, humility, faithfulness, etc.
Because, as Christians, we serve an immutable God whose nature does not change, and because God's nature is the standard for all good things, the subjects of a prince have the same moral standard as their prince. They may not have the same responsibilities or authority. It is not the duty of an ordinary citizen to carry out the judgment of criminals; that is the job of his superior. However, both the ordinary citizen and the prince must strive to be just in all of their doings.
A prince should behave in a way that would mimic the life of Jesus. He should be fair when judging others and he should show compassion and love to his people.If a prince is put in a position where he has to kill inorder to save his people he should. His people are his responsibility and he should fight for them within reason. If a problem can be solved without war then he should choose the more peaceful solution.
the prince does have a different moral standard than his subjects because he is incharge of their well being and saftey...Mabye?
A prince should not rule a country simply based upon what is efficient and keeps him in power. This in itself supports the idea that The Prince was written without any moral standard to be considered. It avoids such questions of morality and what would be best for the good of the subjects.
Well, the obvious answer for a Christian Prince would be the Bible. But, Machiavelli does not seem to imply such a standard, so in essence, the moral obligation is left up to the ruler or Prince in charge.
I'm going to agree with eternal swodsman in his Machiavellian assumption of "Do what keeps you in power." In a sense that, that is what Machiavelli implies. However I think that it is wrong, so naturally I am going to disagree with twinkletoes14 ( love the name by the way! ) in that a Prince can do whatever in order to keep his power.
In short I believe that a standard such as that has the potential to lead to immoral behaivor, which we know is ungodly.
From what we discussed in class, it seems that the prince's standard of ruling is "Do whatever it takes to achieve your goals and protect and serve your people." In his mind, he doesn't seem to consider the well-being others, ally or enemy, citizen or soldier. He only takes into consideration ultimate victory and the protection and preservation of his people.
I am in full agreement with eternal swordsman that this mindset can only apply to a prince, and not government officials or "rulers" in our day and age. These practices would certainly be looked down upon by others.
It seems the only moral standard given by Machiavelli is just, "Do what must be done to keep total control." There is no consideration for what is the right or moral thing to do. I think sometimes the moral standard for a prince has to be different than the average individual because the prince has responsibility for all his subjects. He must sometimes make decisions that seem harsh but are actually the only thing to do as the leader of his people.
Conscerning the issue of moral standards, Machiavelli seems to make himself fairly clear; Do what ever you can to stay on top, no matter what the cost is. Because you are prince there are hardly any consequences to what you do with your subjects, so a moral standard should not be an issue. This is obviously wrong, but to the tainted, sinful eye it seems perfectly acceptable.
The prince's main goal should be keeping his people safe. If it means going to war and killing innocent people, then so be it. His moral standard is based upon the actions that he has to take in order to remain in charge of his people. The moral standard of the prince and of the subjects should be very different. If they were the same everyone will try to gain as much power as possible and will lead to a corrupt nation.
"Is there a moral standard for "the prince"?
What might it be?
How do/would we know what it was? Is the moral standard for a prince different than the moral standard for a subject?
What might the implications be for the answer(s) you offer?"
From the coarses of action recomended by Machiavelli, the moral standard found in "The Prince" appears to be summarized by the sentence, "Do whatever works." The tactics displayed in the book are all simple and brilliant though, at forst glance, they seem to be common sense. Yet, there are certain options that seem to violate Biblical ethics.
As for what the moral standard of a prince really should be, it would appear that a politician's morals should be the same as those of the subject in almost all matters. Only when at least one human life in on the stake does the situation become more difficult. As for this sutuation, I have yet to continue to think this through.
In the Prince, Machiavelli seems to just lay out the different ways to rule a state and is not concerned with a moral standard. He makes it clear that it is fine to kill people is it is necessary to keep rule. He does not appear to be stating his methods from a Christian point of view.
The moral standard for the prince is different than the standard for the subject. The prince must protect his people, whatever the cost. The subject must abide by the laws set by the prince because he has not been appointed to such high a position.
As the preface to the question states, Machiavelli simply does not address morality. His comments are solely practical by nature. I do believe Machiavelli would advocate a morality for “the prince” described by his work if he could be questioned today, but we cannot actually know what morality he would advocate without an in-depth study of his actions in life.
As for morality, everyone is on equal footing. One person does not have a higher or different standard for morality in an ultimate sense. One may have a different interpretation of morality as a ruler than as a subject, but that is true of all people, not just rulers and it does not change the fact that morality is not subjective. The logical conclusion of this is that one should live the same as a prince as they would as a subject. However, this in most cases would not actually happen because of the result of the influence of power on people.
In response to wmg4 and rhetoricprof about using Jesus' title, the Prince of Peace as a moral standard: I think that this is irrelevant to the question. The point is that "The Prince" avoids "morality." It never says "Show mercy to your subjects because that is the right thing to do and the Bible tells you so." He simply says that at times you must show mercy, not because it is a good thing, but because if you don't your subjects will begin to hate you and that will lead to the current governments downfall.
However, it is possible to classify this way of behaving a sort of "morality" but it does not really bring the meaning that the author was trying to get across. Machiavelli almost says that the government should be run as some businesses today are run. Do whatever you have to do to stay on top, even if the measures seem drastic or even "immoral"
NOTE: Apparently, the user name "Titus Sifleria" falsely impersonates and is to close to the name of a real live person at school, therefore I have decided to switch aliases even though my previous posts did indeed reveal geniusness. My new username is more vague, or is it?
A Prince's highest moral obligations is his obligation to rule as God would. It surprises me that only a few people have mentioned God's involvement in this matter. Morality for there can be no wrong or right actions unless God defines these two terms.
Practically speaking, ruling as God would rule means creating harmony is every aspect of the kingdom. The Prince should do everything in his power to create peace and harmony at home and abroad. I base this on the fact that that God always desires and eventually achieves harmony. Eventually God will have peace when Satan is defeated, but until then, he must punish those who divide, namely Satan and his followers. The Prince should act in the same way. He should act in harmony with all if possible, and be quick to punish those who destroy harmony.
In regards to the question of what moral standard Machiavelli prescribes, there is none. He does however note that a moral or virtuous leader is better at maintaining his provinces. He says, “They who come to the Princedom…by virtuous paths, acquire with difficulty, but keep with ease.” (page 13)
As for an apparent difference in moral standards for Princes and their peoples, I would have to agree with A Traveler in that there is no difference of morals. Now, I would like to clarify what causes those differences. twinkletoes14 highlighted the over used cliché that, “with great power comes great responsibility.” I would say that the apparent difference in morals arises from the different levels of responsibilities. Not only does a Prince make more choices than an ordinary citizen, his choices are wholly different and have far greater consequences. Thus the morality is the same, but the aspects of its usage are vastly different.
I would like to hear some responses to a hypothetical situation. There are two isolated kingdoms (the North Kingdom, and the South Kingdom) vying for a water supply during a drought and to save his people the king of the North dams up the river which is the South’s only supply of water (hmm, where have we heard this one before…?). Assuming a Christian morality what is the best choice of action?
- To answer my own question I would have to say that the Christian Prince should immediately attack the North Kingdom, wipe out its former leadership, and follow the slow and difficult path to becoming a well loved virtuous leader. Also, I would probably move my capitol to the area with the water so that I could keep that area with ease, it being the primary reason that I invaded. This solution is moral in that I am doing what is best for my people, taking care of their needs for the present and the future, and am trying not to mistreat the citizens of the conquered kingdom when it can be avoided. Please critique this and give your own solution.
In The Prince, Machiavelli is concerned only with giving the practical ways to rule a kingdom and stay in power. His logic seems reasonable and at first glance there is nothing wrong with his arguments. However, a moral standard is not considered in The Prince.
I agree with nate the great when he says that God must define what is right and wrong and the prince must try to keep harmony in his kingdom. The prince must strive to be just and honest so that the people will grow to love and trust him and there will be more harmony in the kingdom. When the prince uses force to scare the kingdom into obeying it causes angst and rebellion.
The moral standard of the prince should be synonymous with that of the subject. The prince obviously has to make decisions on a larger scale, but both prince and subject should consider what is just before making a decision.The prince must also always keep in mind his subjects and decide on things that would benefit them the most.
Machiavelli, in my estimation, would advocate a consequentalist value system for the Prince. Certain actions, though immoral in normal circumstances, become moral when the good of the result outweighs the harm it causes.
There are numerous problems with this. For a Prince bound by consequentalist ethics, it would be just for him to kill innocent people or steal unnecessarily as long as he was ultimately causing more good, or utility, for himself and his people. Scripturally, we know that shedding innocent blood is hated by God: "thou shalt not murder." Additionally, some good acts, like honesty, are not even good as a general rule. They rarely yield utility. Therefore, consequentalism ultimately fails.
I propose, for the Prince, a deontological system of ethics founded upon a system of imperatives derived from The Ten Commandments and Biblical law. We know this ethical code from Scripture, it is consistent and reliable, and it is universal. This deontological system cannot vary between ruler and subject, because it ignores circumstance and the end result. A ruler's duty is not unto his people, but unto God.
I know that people are going to object with instances of Scriptural justification for breaking moral imperatives, as Rahab. Also, they are going to present moral dilemmas, as Alphonse already has. In these instances, I would advocate a hierarchy of moral imperatives.
When two or more imperatives contradict, we fulfill our duties to higher ones at the expense of the lesser. That is, one's duty to protect True Israel is a greater imperative than one's duty not to lie. Similarly, one's duty to preserve one's own kingdom is arguably a greater imperative than one's duty to not murder. This latter evaluation is so because to allow one's people to detoriate through negligence is an aggregious murder similar to starving a poor man.
"The traveler" and "Alphonse" seem to equate consequentalism with moral relativism. This is false. It is an absolute theory, though it may be wrong. They consistenly choose the larger benefit. We, as Christians, prefer Deontology because it allows for us to allow quantifiably greater harm in exchange for fulfilling a higher duty.
ln "The Prince", there is no moral standard for the prince. It lays out ways to rule and have power, rather than reflecting on morals. Machiavelli does not deal with just/unjust, right/wrong.
The moral standards for princes and subjects differ. The prince is the one who decides the law, and the subjects have to obey it. The prince does not fall under any authority, in his mind. Princes should do everything in their power to protect their people, but also should consider morals. Even though people's moral standards differ, everyone has somewhat of a idea of what is right/wrong, just/unjust. One especially in authority should have an idea of this.
I agree with the general consensus that Machiavelli focuses on the practical side of gaining and maintaining one's "princedom". But everyone seems to be overlooking the fact that one of the key factors needed to maintain a princedom is the good will of the people the prince governs. The people are the one's who give him his power by submitting to him, so he must keep them happy if he wants to keep his kingdom. The best way to keep the people happy is to abide by a code of ethics that gains their respect.
I believe the only moral code that can produce the desired effects is the Moral code Presented in the Bible.
I know some people could object saying that tyrants achieve the same effect without a moral code. But Machiavelli addresses this with his comment about a society in fear of their ruler. Fear makes the public more apt to dispose of their ruler the first chance they get.
So in order to sustain one's princedom for an indefinite amount of time a the moral code presented by the Bible is required. If a prince holds to the Biblical code of morality he will be considered just.
In answer to the question "is there a moral standard for a prince?" I would have to say that it depends on what type of prince you want to be. If you want to rule justly and firmly establish your kingdom, then yes, and that standard is the Biblical code of ethics. If you don't care about that then i guess it doesn't really matter if you have a code of ethics.
Cratus, would you explain what you said regarding moral relativism and consequentiallism a little more?
Machiavelli’s hypothetical prince operated on the assumption that his authority was important/valuable enough that all means should be employed to support it. Essential rights—think life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—of those under him were wholly subject to the decisions he made on how best to build and/or protect his power. Consequently, his moral standard consisted in the demonstration of authority—whether this involved being just or unjust, liberal or miserly, etc.
In contrast, the Scriptural model for a prince was concisely rooted in the law of God. The one in authority was to be manifested as a deliverer, by redeeming the people from bondage and guiding them back to a right submission to God. He was to shepherd them in the commandments of God and to intercede on their behalf. He was to rule them in accordance with the law of God—and to himself be a ‘man after God’s own heart’. The law of God was to be his ‘code of honor’, and the God of that law was to be the ultimate King under Whom he served.
In the vein of Machiavelli’s principle it would seem that the prince’s moral standard was broader, not being subject to a particular code of honor, for he was endowed with the responsibility of keeping his authority intact and respected. Scripturally speaking, however, the moral standard ought to be the same for both prince and people. Both are subject to the law of God; it is only that the prince has more power to execute that law.
Under the Machiavellian code, taste, custom, law and principle were all subject to the dictates of one person, whether or not he is fully trustworthy. If that one person was effective in his foundation of authority, the people would ultimately have no power to redirect what may be misguided or mistaken. Within the Scriptural structure, however, the one in authority is not the ultimate judge; he too is subject to a higher power and to the objective standards that are instituted by that power.
Machiavelli does not clearly lay out a moral standard, but in chapter 15 of “The Prince,” he does talk about the ‘correct behavior’ of a prince. Machiavelli says that the prince should not be concerned with living virtuously; he should act in the most beneficial way to his people. Any prince or ruling lord should exhibit courage, love, compassion, faith, and generosity. While he should exhibit generosity, he must first and foremost be concerned for his own people then worry about giving to others.
If we bring the Bible into this discussion, then a prince should act as much like Christ as possible just like wgm4 said.
The prince should want to keep peace in his kingdom. Being the ruler he must take the authority of solving all disagreements and he must have the good will of his people in mind.
In response to the hypothetical situation – I believe the prince of the south kingdom should discuss his options with the north prince before he simply attacks. I do not think it would be moral to simply attack another kingdom without trying to work things out first. I know everyone says they would not hurt the citizens of the enemy kingdom, but that would never happen – people would still get hurt. If no solution comes of discussion then the south prince would be forced to make a move, only after he warns the north prince of what he is going to do. By going the moral route the south prince should give the north prince every chance to share his water.
Alphonse, it seemed to me that you were assuming universal morality, but then concluding the same standards for both subject and ruler. I doubt that is what the question was asking, but it is an issue of definitions. I would distinguish a value system as something that is inherently universal. However, one universal system can imply different standards for subject and ruler, as consquentalism seems to. A ruler's decisions carry more potential both for good and harm, and thus he has a different standard, but the system of Utilitarianism is still absolute.
This is distinguished from a Deontological view, in which both subject and ruler are held to the same standard, which is merely to fulfill universal imperatives and duties.
... I apologize, my post was somewhat inarticulate.
Cratus, I thought that may have been what you were saying. Thank you for clarifying.
Regarding Belle’s response to the hypothetical, what if diplomacy was of no avail? Would you really expect a king who has gone to the trouble to hoard away his water to give it away without a fight?
If indeed diplomacy fails in the end and the North is now warned of your intent to attack this will end in a greater loss of life or even a preemptive strike ending in loss to your kingdom. Which idea do you think would be better? The one proposed by myself is rather cynical and seems barbaric but it has a predictable result. The one proposed by Belle can end in no loss of life or it could end in disaster. What would a good king do faced with this situation? Are there other options?
I have finally come to a conclusion concerning whether the morals of the prince are the same as the morals of the subject. I say that they are the same. They are just putting into action different facets of the same moral standard.
1. In most cases, the politician should employ the same facets as the subject. "Love God, no idols, no stealing, no marital affairs, no covetousness, etc. " And he must enforce the laws discouraging these sins.
2. But when his decisions will directly lead to the loss of at least one human life (like approving an execution or declaring war and the like), another facet must be used.
I believe that the words of the apologist C. S. Lewis at the end of his Seventh Chapter of the Third Book of his "Mere Christianity" answers this question.
"I Imagine someone will say, 'Well, if someone is allowed to condemn the enemy's acts, and punish him, and kill him, what difference is left between Christian morality and the ordinary view?' All the difference in the world. Remember, we Christians think man lives for ever. Therefore, what really matters is those little marks or twists on the central, inside part of the soul which is going to turn it, in the long run, into a heavenly or hellish creature. We may kill if necessary, but we must not hate and enjoy hating. We may punish if necessary, but we must not enjoy it… Even if we kill and punish we must feel about the enemy as we feel about ourselves — to wish that he were not bad, to hope that he may, in this world or the next, be cured: in fact, to wish his own good. This is what is meant in the Bible by loving him…"
Though the chapter is on forgiveness, the end of the chapter (pages 119-120 in the books given by Mr. Cook) is concerned with the Christian’s use of violence. He seems to say that if we use violence 1) if it is necessary and 2) it must be for the benefit of the bad person. And 3) we must not enjoy doing it like a sadistic maniac.
In the case of the politician, the obvious prerequisite for a decision is that the option be just, appropriate, 1) utterly necessary, and 2) done in benevolence. And he must not enjoy approving that legal action.
Twinketeoes o_ō..... interesting..... I wonder who this person is.
Alphonse, I am curious as to your justification for your own response to the dilemma. You seem to want to dodge the problem by saying that you "would try not to kill them." What is the moral justification you propose for valuing the life of your citizens over the lives of the enemy? Is it a Lockian system of rights forfeiture, a deontological obligation to one's own state (as I propose), or a utilitarian weighing of mass benefit? Or something else.
RedSun... what if the enemy is not evil, but is forced to fight by their ruler... or is deceived? We cannot assume that the only lives we must take are evil ones. It might work as a principle for executions... but not for wars.
Machiavelli receives a lot of criticism from his readers because some of the solutions he offers in a given circumstance are outright atrocities. However, judging this work in such a manor shows that one has missed the point. Machiavelli seeks to provide a complete set of answers to political dilemmas, separate from their moral justifiability.
"...What is the moral justification you propose for valuing the life of your citizens over the lives of the enemy?...?
In reply to Cratus:
While the fancy name was not in mind when I wrote the response, I was thinking along deontological lines. The justification was that I saw the king’s responsibility to his own people as above that of his responsibility to not kill without merit or restraint. The bit about trying not to kill them was basically: adhere to the lower responsibility up to the point that it conflicts with the higher. So, avoid unnecessary bloodshed where possible but in order to protect my people some bloodshed is necessary.
Well done all. Now, GO TO BED.
It would seem that the moral standard for the prince derives from his decision of whom his duty is due. If the prince's duty is only to himself, his moral standard is then only what would keep himself safe, happy, and in power. That duty being to his people instead, his standard changes to be that which keeps them safe and happy.
In "The Prince", Machiavelli only speaks of what will work to keep the individual prince in power, making the apparent moral standard for his book being, as has been said, "do what keeps you in power." And yet, this idea leaves us feeling that something is quite off in his writings, although it all seems clear enough. Our problem with accepting Machiavelli's morality is in that, quite frankly, it is wrong. Machiavelli has set the prince's duty to the wrong being, and we realize this.
We could say that a moral standard coming from a prince's duty to his subjects would be better than to himself, but this could lead to unnecessary cruelty to those who are not among one's subjects. We seem to find something inherently wrong in dismissing one life as worth less than another.
The proper moral standard, then, comes from a prince's duty being neither to himself nor to his subjects, but to God. Our Lord is both a merciful God and a just God, a gentle God and, as Mr. Soderberg reminded us, a frightening God. Could not a prince also display this in his ruling, when he has placed his duty unto the Lord?
Regarding the moral standards for a prince versus a subject, they should be the same. The subject, too, ought to think his duty being to the Lord, and his obedience to the prince and actions towards other subjects will naturally come from this duty. The subject and the prince will only differ in moral standard when one has placed his duty towards a different being, and then we may find conflict arising. When in alignment, however, the only difference between the prince and the subject is that of authority, not morality.
Nate the great, you mention that princes should punish those who divide or cause unrest in the harmony of the kingdom. Would you apply the same principle to the divisions within the church even today that are causing disharmony amongst believers?
And my apologies for commenting so late in the discussion.
It really seems like Machiavelli does not care for human life. He only addresses staying in power by any means possible. Killing for purposes of war, however, does not have to have any moral slant. Many people argue biblically that killing in a war is permissible. Machiavelli assumes that this killing is permissible without citing any reason for this assumption, so it seems as if he is arguing without taking any morals into account. This does not prove that his argument does not take morals into account, but it seems that someone who wanted to make an argument accompanied by morals would defend his reasoning in the moral "gray areas." It seems obvious that most of the devastation Machiavelli argues for falls in this gray area.
Dear Adam (AKA fireball on), I encourage you to view The Price as a text book... It deals with one subject, and in the interest of being exhaustive, Machiavellian has listed all of the possible answers to a problem. Nowhere in the book does he condone them... his provided answers do not give us insight into whether he would ever recommend them.
Is there a moral standard for "the prince"? Yes; possibly; well, at least a standard, not necessarily moral.
What might it be? The moral standard does not lie in morality, but rather practicality, which I guess would make it a practical standard. I guess what I am saying is that The Prince's morality lies in his subjects and how he furthers his kingdom.
How do/would we know what it was? “But since it is my object to write what shall be useful to whosoever understands it, it seems to me better to follow the real truth of things than an imaginary view of them. For many Republics and Princedoms have been imagined that were never seen or known to exist in reality. And the manner in which we live, and that in which we ought to live, are things so wide asunder, that he who quits the one to betake himself to the other is more likely to destroy than to save himself; since any one who would act up to a perfect standard of goodness in everything, must be ruined among so many who are not good. It is essential, therefore, for a Prince who desires to maintain his position, to have learned how to be other than good, and to use or not to use his goodness as necessity requires.” (Machiavelli, 39-40)
Is the moral standard for a prince different than the moral standard for a subject? Yes, the standard is different from the subjects.
What might the implications be for the answer(s) you offer? The Prince rules the subjects, his job being to further the kingdom and prolong his rule. The Prince is there not only for himself, but also for his people.
Machiavelli's moral standard is essentially what he sees as good for the people. As a ruler, his goal consists primarily of protecting his subjects. Therefore the ultimate good he can do is to ensure their safety and wellbeing. While this may seem to be purely benevolent, it's core is one of selfish and humanistic values. The benevolence is only an illusion that is cunningly used to veil man's highest desire; power. Using this method, he can unabashedly satisfy his fallen desires while still maintaining the guise of a virtuous ruler.
At first glance, this may be viewed as selfish and power-hungry. But would it be too far of a stretch to say that this is true in our government today? Nearly everyone would agree that modern politics are riddled with corruption, deceit, and political games. Candidates strive for power and influence like nothing else and oftentimes abandon all moral standards to reach their goal. We are no longer surprised to hear accounts of enormous cover ups, crimes, and scandals. Numerous national leaders, even presidents, have been convicted and even tried for such crimes. So many of them, however, avoid dishonor and walk away unscathed.
Just a thought from outside your door,
pepper&cinnamon
just a test
Please forgive my spelling.
Machiavelli does not openly state a moral standard for the prince. However he clearly states that upon becoming a prince, the prince must present himself as moral, being a leader, courageous, generous, ect. On the other hand, if a prince wants to maintain his power he must compromise his morals in different situations to please the people. Take Hanninbal for instance he had the appearance of cruelty and was thought of as terrible in the sight of men, yet his men fought with no dissension among them and created no mutiny against him. (pg. 44) Hanninbal was cruel/immoral therefore his army feared him and obeyed him.
I do not quite understand why the prince might be held to a different moral standard than his subjects. I do not think, just because the prince "has power" that justifies him to do immoral actions so that he may remain on the throne. The prince might do what is unjust to save his people, but one day he will give an account of his immoral deeds to Christ. If the prince was to guide his kingdom according to the Bible, learning from Israel's mistakes and good deeds, I believe that God would bless his kingdom, and reward the Prince for following Him. (However I do not believe that Machiavelli has mentioned anything about distinctly "Christian rulers".)
signed: Grandma's best friend
There should be a moral standard for " the prince," but Machiavelli does not seem to imply one. He is basically giving an explanation and a "how to book" on how to obtain and stay in power. There is absolutely no moral standard involved in relation to that of Machiavelli's book. However, every prince must have some sort of moral standard or at least some sort of standard (moral or not) for their actions. Otherwise, his rule will end in destruction. For the Christian this standard is obvious. God is the highest moral standard and he should be our guide if we were to have a position of power. Machiavelli's instuction is good, but a Christian ruler would be forced to refine and mold these instuctions to fit God's standard and instruction for those in authority.
Imagine a monarchy. When a famine came upon his land, The monarch pours his treasuries to buy food for his people. The famine is long and hard, but because of the king's generosity few people died.
Is he good? We would be tempted to say he is good but "While this may seem to be purely benevolent, it's core is one of selfish and humanistic values. The benevolence is only an illusion that is cunningly used to veil man's highest desire; power." The king wants to stay in power and to do this his people must survive.
This is ridiculous. Here is why:
Tyrants, aka evil monarchs, arise by separating themselves from the community as a whole. Take the story of King Minos and the bull. "Before he ascended the throne of Crete, Minos struggled with his brothers for the right to rule. Minos prayed to Poseidon to send him a snow-white bull, as a sign of approval by the gods for his reign. He promised to sacrifice the bull as an offering, and as a symbol of subservience. A beautiful white bull rose from the sea, but when Minos saw it, he coveted it for himself, so he kept it and sacrificed the best specimen from his herd instead"
The result of this action was that Minos became a tyrant. As Joseph Campbell says "The return of the bull should have symbolized his absolutely selfless submission to the functions of his role. The retaining of it represented, on the other hand, an impulse to egocentric self-aggrandizement... By the sacrilege of refusing the rite, the individual cut himself of as a unit from larger unit of the whole community: and so the one was broken into many...and could only be governed by force."
There is a community within a nation, of which the king is a part of. It is simply a necessary role, like a plumber or a schoolmaster. Without it the society would not function. Therefore, the desire to keep power at any cost is actually a desire for the society to function correctly. Wanting to remain king is to want the society to remain unchanged, the alternative is for it to break and have two communities at war with each other.
This idea also works with our "prince of peace". We can say that God wants to remain God, self-evident in the fact that he still is God. We can also say that God is part of the community of existence, more specifically the God of it, self-evident in the fact that he exists and is God. As a part of the community we can want to be God, and in doing so would break from the normal community. In order to protect the balance of the community, God must remove anyone who would do this. If he did not, then he would fail to fulfill the duties of his position in the community, thus separating himself from it, becoming a tyrant and thus evil. God is not evil.
The statement "keep power at any cost" is not a evil statement, but rather what must be done in order to protect the community as a whole. If power is not kept, then the society would break, and in not fulfilling his duties, the king would become a tyrant. If power is used to promote a king above the society, then again the king is failing his duties and is a tyrant. Only when a king keeps power is a king good, because only then is the society intact, and warring eliminated.
As a final example, think of a revolt. If the king does nothing, and the revolt does not have the will of the people, then the only way it can rule is by force, because the people do not want to obey it. They would revolt, again and again and before you know it we have the French Revolution! The King therefore must kill the traitors, thus remaining in power.
The traitors will only have the will of the people if the king is a tyrant, and then he should be overthrown anyway. If a king becomes a tyrant, then he should repent, restoring order to the community, and keeping himself in power. Otherwise he is harming the community and must be removed permanently, aka death.
Just because a man holds the office of “prince” does not mean that he is exempt from acting decently. The Lord God, Who created man, says in Romans 1:20 that “since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—His eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” C.S. Lewis also points out, in Mere Christianity, that, whether we believe in God or not, every human being has a peculiar sense of what he and his fellow man ought and ought not to do.
1 Peter 2:14 says that governors “are sent by [God] to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right.” If a prince is not doing this, but rather accomplishing his own selfish gains—especially using the lives of his subjects to pay the way—he is acting unacceptably. A prince’s focus should be on his country, not himself. Faced with something like the water dilemma of countries A and B, a prince should act in a way that would be fair to his country as he is their ruler. If the lives entrusted to a prince are in danger, it is his responsibility to protect them. But he must make sure that his actions are just, because “the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous and His ears are attentive to their prayer, but the face of the Lord is against those who do evil” (1 Peter 3:10-12).
The bottom line is: what is the most important factor involving our existence? If there is no God, as Machiavelli believed (he believed life was governed by a nebulous thing called “Fortune” and by political power), then of course the most important thing should be to please oneself, having the desire anyway to please oneself and having no cause not to do so. But you are in deep trouble to adopt this attitude if there is an afterlife, and two choices of place in which to spend yours, and in order to avoid spending it in the lake of fire prepared for the devil and his angels you must perfectly obey God’s laws. But, as you are a man, you cannot do this, for in Machiavelli’s own words, men are “fickle, false, studious to avoid danger, greedy of gain…” But that’s why God sent man a Savior.
Post a Comment