1a. Does the expedient path promise happiness? What is happiness?
1b. Is Machiavelli's prescription limited to the prince? Does it hold only for monarchies or principalities, but not for republics?
2. Why must a prince "learn how not to be good"?
3. What is our (ethical) task if we are Machiavellians? Are we?
1. Machiavelli is not gainsaying the history of philosophy's traditional esteem of virtue for a couple reasons. First, I don't think there is such a traditional esteem of virtue in philosophy. While it may be true that thinkers like Plato who believed that the essence of being is goodness and that harmony in all life through the order of virtues, not all philosophers would agree. Even theists have said outright that evil stems directly from humans. Augustine claims that God is purely good and that the evil that is present in the world today comes solely from humans and their abuse of free will. In a sense, this is exactly what Machiavelli agrees with. Although many of his claims in The Prince seem rather heavily inclined towards cunning wrong-doing and "evil", he often tempers his statements with an implied need to balance the harsh acts that he proposes are simply necessary to maintain power. With the quote, "...but he should know how to enter into evil when forced by necessity," also seems to imply that this evil state may not be 'default' in a sense, that you must ENTER into it. That this evil is drawn out of humans by events that cause them to deviate from their true nature, which may be generous and good.
ReplyDeleteSo, in sum: I don't believe that he completely counters the idea of a life of virtue that philosophers have presented in the past as a constant effort towards the good - but rather offers some realistic balance to the cruelty and greed that is an unfortunate byproduct of the social systems that have developed over time.
While I agree that Machiavelli does not denounce the history of philosophy's favor towards virtue, I am not sure that my reasoning entirely coincides with yours. While I agree with the sense of balance which he declares necessary, I disagree that virtue is simply used because cruelty and greed are "unfortunate byproduct[s]" of the prince's system. Machiavelli states that "it is not necessary for a prince to possess all of the above-mentioned qualities [virtues], but it is very necessary for him to appear to possess them" (61). In this way, he proves a respect for and high regard for virtues which are traditionally studied to be "good." Granted, that he does not uphold the prince to a level which would demand a possession of such qualities, this detail suggests that he instead distrusts the presence of morality or virtues in others. That is not to say that he finds virtue unimportant, but that "men are a wicked lot and will not keep their promises to [the prince], [the prince] likewise need not keep [his] to them" (61). Machiavelli thus does not honor the traditional esteem of virtue, but he does not denounce its value and in doing so protects the prestige, power and success of the king--the only qualities he finds important for ruling (essentially).
Delete-Amanda Eliades
1/1b) I agree that Machiavelli disregards the virtuous path because it is necessary to be more efficient when securing a principality. He wrote this book in order to guide princes on the most surefire, competent way to gain and run a principality. With this end in mind, he was putting the virtuous ideals aside for what was necessary during his time period. What was necessary was turning a territory “full of thefts, quarrels, and every other kind of insolence” into a “peaceful and united” land (27). When this state of peace was achieved, the prince could then bypass the ongoing opposition by carrying out cruelties at one point in time. As long as a prince provided this security, his reign was much less likely to be challenged internally. This end, where princes are considered infamous for the sake of a “united and loyal kingdom” (57), not an ideal virtuous utopia, was what Machiavelli intended as a “practical political goal” (vii).
ReplyDeleteTherefore, I believe the time period and context in which this book was written should provide insights into how Machiavelli intended for it to be interpreted. The idea of exercising necessary and morally questionable means was solely for a principality within that time period; this methodology became obsolete just ten years after its publication (vii). These ideas seem so questionable because as society, governments, and people changed to be more secure, the need for morality increased. Therefore, this philosophy holds only for the monarchies and principalities within that time period—modern-day monarchies and republics do not require the force of a dictator in the capacity that Machiavelli describes.
Interesting comments, although I'm less compelled by your later points about interpretation. I think the "immediate practical purpose" of the Prince, which Viroli refers to, was the unification of Italy, which Machiavelli urges at the end of the Prince.
DeleteI am very skeptical that suddenly the need for morality became greater, yet this does raise a question about the relation between politics and morality/ethics. Normally, the former stands above the latter. And isn't the republican form a gesture at the stability that the principality could not have, because of its very structure (or lack thereof)?
I think you guys have answered these questions very well. I was just curious as to what the general consensus of what happiness is to everyone. I feel as though it is totally dependent on the individual. So, taking question 1a for example. I think taking the expedient path can both result and not result in happiness depending on the individual. If he or she is predisposed to taking this expedient path, they would probably derive some happiness from it and vice versa. I don't want to make any one read a novel here, but I do not think there is a clear cut answer to it that can be used as a blanket response to all cases.
ReplyDeleteI think happiness is an arbitrary expression of our internal reaction to external circumstances. I feel like happiness' complexity and beauty stems from its incredibly uncertain and unspecific nature. We can't have a clear cut definition of happiness because, if we did, happiness wouldn't truly come from with in. Furthermore, figuring out if we were "happy" would be like comparing a datum to see if it coincided other peoples' results. When happiness isn't required to fit into a general consensus, it becomes something more along the lines of intangible expression, a piece of art if you will, open to interpretation. Once we try to discover what happiness is, happiness itself loses its wonder, mystery, and majesty. In other words, the more we analyze it, the less we really feel it.
DeleteI agree with Colin. Happiness is something that is dependent on each individual; what might make one person happy could make another person feel annoyed or angry. Happiness is state of being that is extremely dependent on each individual. One thing can make more than one person happy but it can also have a different effect on someone else. As to Drake's point, I never thought of it that way. The idea that happiness' beauty is something that shouldn't be analyzed or examined makes sense to me. Happiness is something that we are able to feel and once we are asked to examine our own happiness and what specific things make us happy, it takes away from the "magic" that is happiness. If I were to be asked why I am in a good mood, I could list the things that made me feel this way, such as receiving a good grade or planning an exciting vacation; I would only be able to explain that they made me happy. If asked why they made me happy, it would take away from, as Drake said, the wonder of it all.
DeleteI don't see happiness as a state of being or just a conscious choice to focus on the "good things" in our lives. Happiness is the short bursts of excitement that arise from having passion is a certain goal that we are attempting to achieve. So yes, happiness has an individual aspect to it in that one must choose which journey they believe is worth taking. Little achievements on the road to one's final goal are the small moments that excite the soul which we call happiness. The idea of "true happiness" is not truly obtainable yet these small moments of success are what allows us humans to cope with the extreme hardships we face everyday on the path to our goals. But as grim as it sounds, we can't bottle up our happiness and save it for a rainy day. As soon as we are happy about something, we only demand more of it. One good grade is only good until the next test. A championship feels good until you lose next season. Happiness is merely a passionate moment before you long for more of that feeling so no one will ever be truly 100% happy. However, as long as someone stays engaged in their life goals and passions, happiness is always around the corner.
Delete-Denis Ostick
I would have to disagree with Denis because I believe that the description he provides defines satisfaction. The difference being, that satisfaction is something that people will never have enough of and will always be searching for. In that aspect, Denis provides an excellent description for satisfaction. However satisfaction and happiness differ in that happiness is something that can be found out of nothing. Someone may lie on the beach doing absolutely nothing, and yet most people would describe that as happy. There is no achievement involved and nothing to strive for. Happiness comes from stopping and smelling the roses. As cliché as that sounds, it is true because the ability to appreciate any one moment is what separates people who are happy and people who are sad. While we may never be satisfied, anyone can find true happiness out of any event. It is a state of mind rather than a reaction to any one event.
Delete1a. I think that happiness is truly dependent on the individual personality. What makes one person happy is not necessarily what would make another person happy. With that being said, the expedient path does not necessarily promise happiness if that is not something pleasing to the individual.
ReplyDelete1b. I think that Machiavelli’s prescription is rather limited based on the differences between his time and present day. Machiavelli definitely wrote this as a guide for princes and royalty, but some of the ideas he presents could be applicable for a person in a position of power depending on the circumstance.
I agree with you April. All people are different and happiness is different to all of those people. I believe that something that makes one person happy does not necessarily have to make another person happy. Two people could achieve the same things, but one could be happy while the other is not. Some people just have different ideas of what happiness is and they need to reach their idea of happiness, not societies. Therefore, I do not believe the expedient path promises happiness because it is not tailored to the individual. People need to take their own paths to happiness and do what is best for their own well-being and not worry about society views as right or wrong.
DeleteI agree with you April in the sense that I do not think the expedient path leads to happiness. I think it would be very hard to have a discussion about happiness in a Machiavellian context. To Machiavelli, happiness would be a distraction from his ultimate end goal, which is to rule well. Rulers cannot worry about their happiness any more than they can worry about being good. They must make decisions purely on the effects it will have on their kingdom and their reign. Machiavelli believes that because many men are unvirtuous, a prince who lives a life of virtue will come to a bad end because he is unwilling to stoop down to the level of the unvirtuous man, even when it is necessary for the stability of his kingdom. Aristotle defines happiness as “the activity [of the soul] in accord with virtue.” (10) Thus the expedient path could never lead to happiness because actions that further one’s purposes but are immoral are unvirtuous, and the unvirtuous person cannot be happy. I do not think that Machiavelli is completely discounting happiness as good and important, but rather that it has no place in a prince’s life. He thinks that if one chooses to rule, then one must give up the hope of a living a good, happy life. To him power is more important than happiness in that sense. I also don’t entirely agree with your argument that “happiness is truly dependent on the individual personality,” because I agree with Aristotle’s definition of happiness, that is based on a life of virtue. I think that if you look at people who are happy, they will have the same general consensus that happiness comes from doing something good and doing something that you love. While the virtue that directs their life may be different based on each person, no one can be happy unless that direct their soul in actions in accordance with some virtue.
Delete2. I believe that it is important for a prince to "learn to not be good" for multiple reasons. The characteristic I think is most essential in a good prince is adaptability. Like we mentioned in class, it is virtually impossible to be prepared for every situation in life. No matter what there will always be unforeseen obstacles that may arise. That is why a prince must be able to adapt very swiftly. A good prince will be prepared for a situation, and even if it does not go according to plan will be just as successful in his intentions. By having a prince learn to not be good will only further allow him to be able to adapt in situations. Even if the prince is a good man he will be dealing with many bad men. Learning how these bad people may think and act will in turn give the prince the upper edge when it comes to dealing with them. A truly good and successful prince is aware that he cannot know everything and be 100% prepared but he will do everything in his power to make sure he can adapt at any time, even if it means learning to be bad.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you Kristin. As I mentioned in class, I do not think a prince can be fully prepared to rule if he does not know about the good and the evil. If he did not “learn to be bad” it would be as if he was assuming that people are all good. That acting good was the only way of acting out there. Now learning how to think like a bad person does not mean you should become a bad person. They are two very different things, I think. As a prince you are expected, by the people, to know more than them or to have a better way of dealing with problems than themselves. If a prince chose not to learn how an “attacker” might act and only looked at it from one perspective he would be letting his people down due to his naïve nature. Machiavelli says that fortune favors those who are able to adapt. In order for a person to be truly adaptable they must come with as many tools and skills as they can. If he only can with an onset mindset tool he would not have very many options as tools to use for a problem. In regards to the prince, he must as educated as he can about various tactics of attack as he can so that he has the ability to draw on these example and apply them to a situation as he seems fit. Finally I think Machiavelli says that one must “learn to be bad” as a way to reference the Medici family- a family that had contributed heavily to the blossoming of the Renaissance. At the time the Medici had been ruling for a little less than a century. One reason as to why the family had been able to rule for so long was because they had “learned how to be bad” (often some of them even were bad) and had applied and used this skill very well.
DeleteI also agree with Kristin. For a prince to be successful people must know not to cross him. He will not everything that is going on around him, such as, if a close friend is working behind his back. This can be avoided if a prince is a feared man and has the ability to "not be good". A more modern example of this is in the movie "The Godfather". In this movie, every man feared Don Corleone because he had the power to to take out any person he wanted to. Men wanted to try to be in "The Godfather's" good graces so that they were not targeted and they could reap the benefits of being a friend of a powerful man. Just like Machiavelli's prince, Don Corleone did not know what was going on behind his back but was ready at any moment to discipline those who had crossed him.
DeleteI absolutely agree with Kristin! But I also believe that it is important for a Prince to learn how to not be good because there will be instances where he cannot please everyone. There will always be an option that is best for the greater good, but could be very detrimental to certain individuals. In order for a prince to be truly good and find the best possible outcome for the general population, he must overlook the good of some. Although it could be considered immoral for a person to blatantly disregard the good of others, it is sometimes the only option for a nation or kingdom to survive. Also, I agree with Joe that people in power must be feared in some way in order to keep their people in line and following orders. Order is best for the greater good, so acting in a technically bad way could be best for a nation.
DeleteI agree with what everyone else has been saying. The prince needs to keep in mind the state and doing what is right for the people. The prince needs to learn not to be good or people will take advantage of him. If the prince can already know how to not be good, he can get all of his bad deeds out of the way in the beginning of his reign, and then the people will probably forget about it. If the prince tries to be too nice or generous, as Aristotle says, he will have to make more enemies trying to fix his problems. Aristotle gives the example of the prince wanting to give the people too much and then being forced to excessively tax them. The prince needs to not concern himself with being good because it will only cause him more problems and as the prince, his main concern is the state and the citizens.
Delete3. I don’t think that we have an ethical task if we are Machiavellians. I think that Machiavelli would see any ethical code or statement as a barrier to the most complete and successful rule a prince can have. At some point, any ethical code would become a weakness that the Prince’s enemies could exploit. I think that the one moral request he makes in the Prince is for the Prince to limit the suffering of his people. Of course, his reasoning behind this is that an unhappy populace will make it easier for rebellions to take place. If a ruler does follow Machiavelli’s reasoning though, he will have limited the cruelty the populace sufferers to the very beginning of his rule, and if he is smart, he will also agree with Machiavelli, that one should leave the populace to themselves as much as possible, and try to rule with the most minimal taxes and laws possible. However, Machiavelli only agrees with this way of ruling if it successful, and manages to keep the population happy, complacent, and under the ruler’s thumb. So any ethical task of a Machiavellian would only serve to further the Prince’s end goal of complete domination.
ReplyDelete