|
 Philosopher
of the Month
August
2002 - Niccolo Machiavelli
Peter
Cave
Niccolo
Machiavelli (1469-1527) was primarily a diplomat and spin-doctor,
committed to enhancing the power of his native city republic, Florence.
When the Medici family ousted the republicans, Machiavelli was treated
with suspicion and eventually accused of plotting against the Medici.
In
1513, Machiavelli was tortured, and retired to a farm - an internal
exile. There he wrote Il Principe (The Prince) - a gift for
the powerful Medici. Machiavelli hoped that his exposition on how
rulers should secure power would re-ignite his political career,
even if in support of the princely dictators. The Prince
failed in that, but brought him posthumous fame - fame as the political
philosopher best known for (seemingly) being prepared to justify
any means for political preservation. He later wrote the Discourses,
justifying republicanism, and The Art of War, arguing for
a citizen militia rather than mercenaries.
It
was The Prince, though, which gave rise to the term 'machiavellian',
for there Machiavelli advocates the use of cunning, machinations
and ruthlessness - all apparently in the service of political success.
It is this which is much admired these days (often off the record)
by spin-doctoring politicians, salesmen, even academics ready to
wield the knife for advancement. Yet is this 'Mac the knife' stance
all there is to The Prince's philosophy? Is it merely a handbook
on how princes - and, by extension, other leaders - can gain and
maintain power? Certainly, it differs radically from previous works
which would recommend justice, honesty and compassion - man, as
a reasoner - as the best means of securing glory. In contrast, Machiavelli
admires the cruelty of Cesare Borgia, advocates treachery, and argues
that in the real world leaders need to be half beasts, possessing
the fox's guile and the lion's brutality. Machiavelli's manly prowess
- 'virtù' - is so different from the virtues found in Plato,
Aristotle and, indeed, Christianity.
Although
such ruthlessness suggests Machiavelli is immoral, some say he is
merely amoral. Machiavelli tells us not how things should be, but
merely explains what to do, if we seek certain ends. But,
in response, taking what seems to be an amoral stance can itself
be immoral. Merely to discuss how best to tie fireworks to cats
to maximise pain is already to be in the realm of the immoral. So,
maybe The Prince simply is the work of an immoralist, with
Machiavelli knowingly advocating actions which are wrong. Yet, although
he explicitly writes that a prince needs to learn how not to be
good, he may yet resist the immorality charge. To challenge conventional
moral thinking is not thereby to be immoral; and contrary to popular
image, The Prince is much concerned with which actions truly
are right.
Philosophers
who seek to justify actions primarily in terms of their consequences,
or at least their likely or intended consequences, are (somewhat
ambiguously) known as 'consequen-tialists'. Certainly Machiavelli
has strong consequentialist streaks. But what are the consequences
which Machiavelli values? He speaks of maintaining power, of glory
and posthumous fame; but these are essentially intertwined with
the state - that is, the citizens - flourishing. Machiavelli would
not be satisfied with a prince securing illusory glory and fame
in some virtual reality machine. He wants the real thing - and that
requires the prince's citizens prospering. So, the immorality charge
will not stick with regard to his recommended ends.
How
about the means? Even here, Machiavelli shows moral concern. He
explicitly advocates maintaining traditional moral values as far
as possible, using cruelty and deceit only when necessary for the
common good. He also reminds us that moral virtue is not episodic.
True kindness towards children is not to give them ice-creams whenever
they demand; sometimes you say 'no' and upset them - but such episodes
of seeming unkindness may be manifestations of continuing concern.
Machiavelli argues similarly that seeming cruelties might be the
actions of a compassionate leader, prepared not to shirk duties,
acting for the greater good.
When
dealing with family and friends, suggests Machiavelli, sticking
to traditional moral rules can probably be relied upon, for family
and friends are likely to reciprocate. In politics, adversaries
cannot be relied upon; for this reason - and because Fortuna throws
up the unexpected - princes need flexibility. Even if flexible,
he notes, things often run out of your control. Machiavelli's recognition
of political luck presages recent concern for moral luck. X is accepted
as a typical driver who occasionally drives above the speed limits;
Y, driving just the same, hits unlucky, kills a child - and gets
imprisoned. Reflect on events outside our leaders' control. Would
Bush be so popular, but for Mr Bin Laden? Thatcher but for the Argentinian
war? Was not her inflexibility the cause of her eventual downfall?
When
asked what shaped his political strategy, Harold McMillan answered,
"Events, dear boy, events!" Machiavelli gives substance
to this answer, saying much more than is conjured up by the term
'machiavellian'.
Suggested
reading
The Prince, Machiavelli (many editions)
Machiavelli, Quentin Skinner (OUP)
A
new philosopher of the month will be featured early-September 2002
Join
Our Café mailing list
To
receive *very* short messages, letting you know when the Café
has been updated, just fill in your email address below - and press
submit.
[If
you wish to unsubscribe from the mailing list, simply fill in your
subscriber email address, select "Unsubscribe", and press Submit.]
Previous
Philosophers of the Month
|
