Machiavelli begins this chapter by addressing how mercy can be misused which will harm the prince and his dominion. He ends by stating that a prince should not shrink from being cruel if it means that it will keep his subjects in line. After all, it will help him maintain his rule. He gives the example of Cesare Borgia, whose cruelty protected him from rebellions.[26] He contrasts this example with the leaders of Florence, who, through too much mercy, allowed the city of Pistoia to destroy itself.
In addressing the question of whether it is better to be loved or feared, Machiavelli writes, “The answer is that one would like to be both the one and the other; but because it is difficult to combine them, it is far safer to be feared than loved if you cannot be both.” As Machiavelli asserts, commitments made in peace are not always kept in adversity; however, commitments made in fear are kept out of fear. Yet, a prince must ensure that he is not feared to the point of hatred, which is very possible.
This chapter is possibly the most well-known of the work, and it is important because of the reasoning behind Machiavelli’s famous idea that it is better to be feared than loved.[27] His justification is purely pragmatic; as he notes, “Men worry less about doing an injury to one who makes himself loved than to one who makes himself feared.” Fear is used as a means to ensure obedience from his subjects, and security for the prince. Above all, Machiavelli argues, a prince should not interfere with the property of their subjects or their women, and if they should try to kill someone, they should do it with a convenient justification.
Regarding the troops of the prince, fear is absolutely necessary to keep a large garrison united and a prince should not mind the thought of cruelty in that regard. For a prince who leads his own army, it is imperative for him to observe cruelty because that is the only way he can command his soldiers’ absolute respect. Machiavelli compares two great military leaders: Hannibal and Scipio Africanus. Although Hannibal’s army consisted of men of various races, they were never rebellious because they feared their leader. Machiavelli says this required “inhuman cruelty” which he refers to as a virtue. Scipio’s men, on the other hand, were known for their mutiny and dissension, due to Scipio’s “excessive mercy” – which was, however, a source of glory because he lived in a republic.
Intro We’re often appalled by how sly and dishonest many politicians are, but we shouldn’t be. In moods like this we need to remember and read the works of Niccolo Machiavelli. A late 15th century political advisor and political theorist who argued that we shouldn’t think that politicians are imoral and simply bad for lying and dissembling and maneuvering. A good politician, in Machiavelli’s remarkable view, isn’t one who’s friendly and honest and kind. It’s someone, however occasionally dark and underhand they might be, who knows how to defend, enrich and bring honor to the state, Niccol Machiavelli which is also an extremely important goal. Being nice may well be a virtue in general, but what citizens most need from their rulers is effectiveness, which may well call upon some darker arts. Once we understand this basic requirement, we stand to be less disappointed and clearer about what we want from our politicians. Niccolo Machiavelli was born in Florence in 1469. His father was a lawyer And so Machiavelli received an extensive formal education and got his first job as secretary for the city of florence But, soon after his appointment Florence exploded politically And expelled the Medici family who’d ruled it for 60 years And suffered decades of political instability and turmoil As a consequence, Machiavelli experienced a series of carrier reversals. Over just a few decades, he went from being an important diplomat to a semi-successful general, to an enemy of the state – tortured and then exiled when he Medici returned to power. Although Machiavelli was rather a failed politician, he can be remembered as a truly great man because of the two works – THE PRINCE, and THE DISCOURSES. The Prince and the Discourse In them he addressed a central problem of politics: it is almost impossible to be both a good politician and a good person in a traditional christian sense. Machiavelli proposed that the overwhelming responsibility of a good prince is to defend the state from external and internal threats. To stable governance. This means, he must know how to fight but more importantly he must know about the reputation and the management of those around him. People should neither think he is soft and easy to disobey. Nor should they find him so cruel that he disgust his society. He should seem unapproachably strict ,but reasonable. When Machiavelli turned to the question of whether is was better for a Prince to be loved or feared? He wrote that while it ‘ll be theoretically wonderful for a leader to be both loved and obeyed. a Prince should always err on the side of inspiring terror. For this is ultimately what keeps people in check. Machiavelli christian contemporaries had suggested that princes should be merciful, peaceful, generous, and tolerant. They thought that being a good politician was. in short, the same as being a good christian. But Machiavelli argued differently. He asked his readers to dwell on the incompatibility between Christian ethics and good governance And particularly referred to the case of Girolamo Savonorola. Savonorola was a dominican friar , a fervent idealistic christian, who’d briefly come to be the ruler of Florence in 1494. He’d come to power promising the city of God on earth.He preached against the excesses and tyranny of Medici government. and even managed to rule Florence as a peaceful, democratic, and relatively honest state. Criminal Virtue However, Savonorola success couldn’t last because,in Machiavelli’s view, itwas based on the weakness that always attends being good in a christian sense. it was not long before his regime became threat to the corrupt Pope Alexander. whose henchman captured and tortured Savonarola. Hung him in the center of Florence and burnt the body before the eyes of a vengeful citizenry. This, in Machiavelli eyes, is what tends to happen to the nice guys in politics. Rather than follow this unfortunate christian example, Machiavelli suggested that a leader would do well to make judicious use of what the called virtu (VIRTUE). Machiavelli concept of virtu for politicians involves wisdom, strategy, strength, bravery, and when necessary, ruthlessness. In fact at one point Machiavelli uses the deliciously paradoxical phrase ‘ Criminal Virtue’ to describe the necessary ability of leaders to be cruel in the name of the state , and yet, still good as leaders. Machiavelli provided some criteria for what constitutes the right occasion for bit of criminal virtue. Any violence must be strictly necessary for the security of the state. ; it must be done swiftly, often at night – counsel Machiavelli, and it should be repeated too often lest the reputation for mindless brutality builds up. Machiavelli gave the example of his contemporary, Cesare Borgia, Whom he admired as someone who knew how to be tough, but not too tough that we might question the criteria Machiavelli used. when Cesare conquered the city of Cesena, he ordered one of his mercenary, ramirida okow, to bring order to the region which ramiro did through swift and brutal ways – Men were beheaded in front of their wives and children; property was ceased; traitors were castrated. Cesare then turned onto okow himself and had him sliced in half and placed in public square. just to remind the town’s people who the true boss was. but then, as Machiavelli approvingly noted, that was enough blood shed. Cesare moved on to cut taxes,imported cheap grain, build a theater, and organized a series of beautiful festival to keep people from dwelling on unfortunate memories. Conclusion The catholic church banned Machiavelli work for 200 years because of the force with which he had argued that being a good christian was was incompatible with being a good leader. but even for atheist and those of us not politicians, Machiavelli’s insights are important he writes that we can’t be good at (or for) all things Not only because of our limited ability and resources but also because of conflicts within moral codes. some of the fields we choose; if not politics then perhaps business or, family life may require what we evasively called ‘difficult decisions’. By which we really mean ‘ethical trade-offs’. we may have to sacrifice neo-christian visions of kindness for the sake of practical effectiveness. We may have to lie in order to keep or relationship afloat. We may have to ignore the feeling of certain employees to keep a business going. And that, insists Machiavelli, is the price of dealing with the world as it is, and not as we feel it should be. The world has continued to love and hate Machiavelli in equal measure for insisting on focusing our attention on the uncomfortable tension between two things we love and always want to have together but perhaps can’t – effectiveness and kindness. And Niceness.
There are, in the history of philosophy, very few who have reached the level of notoriety as Niccolo Machiavelli. Here is a philosophy almost exclusively comprised of politics; ethics and religion also make themselves known, but only as tributary to the main theme. It is true that in our modern day political sphere there is a stigma surrounding his name. This is do, of course, to the hypocritical excoriation of evil-doing from our modern politicians. We must forgive them though for indeed they must do this to secure the popular vote. Do not let these contemporary views deter you; The Prince and Discourses are brilliant works of literature. For the first time we had a philosopher who was not concerned with utopian ideals of how the world should be, but instead with how it really is. The aim of the Machiavellian philosophy is this; to better understand why states rise, why they fall, and how one might best go about maintaining its stability to the end of slowing this inevitable decomposition. He is confident in his ability to produce such a method of statesmanship since the nature of man never changes, “wise men say, not without reason, that whoever wishes to foresee the future must consult the past; for human events ever resemble those of preceding times. This arises from the fact that they are produced by men who have been, and ever will be, animated by the same passions; and they must necessarily have the same results.” We must begin by assuming that all men are bad and will, if given the proper circumstances; bare their fangs to acquire what they wish. In like manner they can, if given the proper guidance, be made civil and obedient. If the state is to achieve this then organized force, in all likelihood, will be required. Through this force laws can be established, and through these laws habit can be cultivated. Once habits have been formed by the people inordinate force will no longer be required. Here we have the basic formula for the creation of the state. It is best practice, Machiavelli thought, for the ruler of the state to adopt or start a religion, “in truth there never was any remarkable lawgiver . . . who did not resort to divine authority, as otherwise his laws would not have been accepted by the people.” For this reason Machiavelli gives the greatest of respect to those who establish these religions and the greatest of distain to those who destroy them, “for where the fear of god is wanting, there the country will be destroyed.” There is, however an avenue by which a state may follow to substitute the divine authority provided by religion. This being by fear of the prince, “but the lives of princes are short,” so religion remains our most trusted path to stability. Though Machiavelli accepts religion he looks upon Christianity as a failure. He thinks it causes its followers to value death more than life for the sake of going to paradise. Furthermore “it has placed the supreme good in humility and poorness of spirit,” which has caused Italy to fall into the hands of wicked and nefarious men. A religion such as that which the Romans adopted would be of more use as it placed its highest virtues in “greatness of mind” and “bodily strength.” This ethic of might is right will allow the nation to act according to its best interests without the consideration of what is morally permissible, “where it is an absolute question of the welfare of our country,” said Machiavelli, “we must admit of no considerations of justice or injustice, of mercy or cruelty, of praise or ignominy; but putting all else aside we must adopt whatever course will save the nation’s existence and liberty.” To maintain stability, the state must have a leader or leaders who, without hesitation, will do what must be done. Deceit, violence; whatever must be undertaken for the sake of the state will be considered right and just, “when the act accuses him, the result should excuse him.” It was a fixation of Machiavelli’s to find one who could achieve his lifelong goal of unifying all of Italy. He knew any chance for peaceful union had long since passed, it could only now be achieved by the prince. This is to say a man “who would not let conscience make a coward of him, but would strike with an iron hand, letting his great aim justify all means.” – Will Durant. It was to his greatest delight when, at the age of 29, he met Cesare Borgia who he thought could be this unifying force, but fortune would not be on the young Borgia’s side and the dual sickness of father and son would dash Machiavelli’s hopes and dreams. After the capture of Florence by the Medici Machiavelli would himself run into a series of unfortunate events. But we may thank fortune here, for without it we may never have heard the name Niccolo Machiavelli. Here was a book revolutionary for its time; it was to be a sort of guide to any ruler interested in achieving success. What sets it apart from any other book of its likeness is its embrace of wickedness as a necessary trait for any ruler to exploit if they wish to acquire and maintain power. “It being my intention,” he said, “to write something that shall be useful to him who comprehends it, it appears to me more appropriate to follow up the real truth of a matter than the imagination of it.” So let us uncover the traits which, in the eyes of Machiavelli, comprise the ideal prince. It is necessary that he understands that what is good for the state may not always align with his moral compass, he must know how, when necessity calls, “to do wrong, and to make use of it or not.” Though it is true that in his discourses he does bring attention to those such as the five good emperors of Rome, who, by the goodness of their character, were able to rule sufficiently without the use of wickedness and deceit. In either case a ruler must raise and maintain a strong military, but he should keep in mind that often times cunning and deceit achieve more than war, and for this diplomacy should be sufficiently known. For those states that wish to revolt or disobey he should not hesitate to deploy whatever means necessary to quell the situation, even cruelty should remain an acceptable avenue. But a fatal mistake that must be avoided is that of continued cruelty, even after obedience has been established. What he appears to be is more important than what he really is. Machiavelli stated “though a prince need not possess all the virtues, to seem to have them is useful; as, for example, to seem merciful, loyal, humane, religious, and sincere; it is also useful to be so, but with a mind so flexible that if the need arise he can be the contrary.” The ability of the prince to uphold this image is indispensable if he is to maintain what he has acquired. The ones who see through this guise “dare not oppose the opinion of the many.” While the work was a revelation to common peoples it was not so to the ruling class; after all it was what they had been practicing for millennia. It was Francis Bacon who said “our thanks are due to Machiavelli and similar writings, who have openly and without dissimulation shown us what men are accustomed to do, not what they ought to do.” So though he failed in just about everything in life, Machiavelli would succeed in adding his name on the list of histories heroes. If you enjoyed this video or found it helpful consider subscribing to the channel, here my goal is to illuminate history’s greatest philosophic minds and ideas. Let me know in the comments below who you would like to see me do a video on in the future, and as always thank you for talking philosophy with me, until next time.