People
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 - 'virtů' - 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 'consequentialists'. 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)
Click here to return to the Philosophy Café
Previous Philosophers of the Month
November 2000 - David Hume
December 2000 -
Thomas Paine
January 2001 - J.
S. Mill
February 2001 -
Thomas Kuhn
March 2001 - Thomas
Aquinas
April 2001 - George
Berkeley
May 2001 - Michel
Foucault
Jun 2001 - Ludwig
Wittgenstein
Jul 2001 - Henry
Sidgwick
August 2001 - René
Descartes
September 2001 -
Soren Kierkegaard
October 2001 -
Simone de Beauvoir
November 2001 -
Karl Marx
January 2002 -
Baruch Spinoza
February 2002 -
Friedrich Nietzsche
March 2002 - David
Lewis
April 2002 -
Richard Rorty
June 2002 - Hilary
Putnam
July 2002 -
Immanuel Kant
August 2002 -
Niccolo Machiavelli
September 2002 -
Kenneth Craik
October 2002 -
Alasdair MacIntyre
November 2002 -
Boethius
December 2002 - Plato