Machiavelli_and_the_Ethics_of_Morality_and_Politics

In The Prince the seeds of a new political and ethical order can be acquired from the study of history and current events. The Renaissance represented a renewal of interest in Greek and Roman classical times. This interest manifested itself into a movement which took hold in the humanities. Machiavelli, a well-known Italian humanist and political philosopher, not only intended to address Lorenzo de Medici and the other rulers of his time through his political treatise, but every ruler, at any time. Just as Columbus and others during his time were discovering new existences, Machiavelli invited the politically intelligent of his day to rediscover Republican Rome. Niccolò Machiavelli's The Prince argued that morality and politics cannot co-exist in the same forum. However, when investigating Machiavelli's ideas and philosophies, it can be concluded that perhaps the evil and violence he suggests are fueled by moral end. Therefore, it is absolutely crucial to grasp and understand his key concepts of fortune and virtue. The two antagonistic concepts of fortune and virtue, Machiavelli argues, reflect the way in which a prince should govern while decreasing all risk of being overthrown or losing power while remaining moral. Machiavelli’s type of governing demands a certain level of violence. However, this is done solely for the purpose of maintaining the prince’s throne and power, and also generating both fear and accolades from his people, which Maureen Ramsay, with Britain’s Current Affairs & Politics Magazine, agrees from a modern perspective on politics. When Machiavelli calls for violence, he minimizes the amount that needs to be taken, and in most cases, those who are being effected, are the enemies of the people. The prince essentially takes all responsibility, not leaving the consequences on the shoulders of the people. All the prince asks for in return is to respect his power and to continue to show loyalty without threat. This request is quite feeble compared to those of other monarchies of the 16th century. In the end, Machiavelli's prince assumes all the liability and strain of the suggested violence, leaving his people to act freely without worry of their well-being. This presents Machiavelli's paramount motion of morality. Before seeing how the existence of violence can ultimately lead to morality, it is significant to observe exactly what the prince is demanded to do. Machiavelli clearly stresses the concepts of fortune and virtue. He defines fortune by the idea that everything is uncertain, and nothing will guarantee anything will transpire. Machiavelli states that a Prince should never reign by fortune. This approach to understanding Machiavelli’s text parallels with that of Richard Hooker’s, although many others completely disagree. Through risk, one leaves himself completely vulnerable to failure; thus, action should be withheld if any element of chance should be implied. Machiavelli ties virtue very closely to that of his definition of prudence. Machiavelli’s “virtue” is illustrated as acting atypical. He draws a fine line between his two main concepts of morality and virtue. Machiavelli clearly defines virtue by caution. According to Machiavelli, if a ruler is able to juggle violence with keeping the people pacified and is conscious of his threats, then, the ruler’s virtue is outstanding.The ruler must clearly comprehend that the throne is in constant exposure and someone is always there trying to remove the prince from power. This fuels the well known argument by Machiavelli that “it is better to be feared than loved” (Machiavelli 79). Machiav- elli explains that, love is fleeting and will subside unless adjustments are made to keep the people happy and peaceful. Essentially, the people are only concerned about their personal necessities. If the prince was to be loved, he would have to be over-concerned with the needs and wants of the people.Nevertheless, fear, is not fleeting and has uniform effect on all whom he rules over. Fear is attained by any violent act. These acts, however, should never be done in mass.The people would then view the prince as a tyrant, and potentially rise up against him. The acts serve an honest intention,and benefit the prince and his people. Despite what some may think, Machiavelli develops his whole kingdom around the people. The actions the prince takes are solely done to save his life. Machiavelli’s kingdom, overall, holds a sense of morality behind the violence that must be taken in order to maintain stability. Machiavelli does not take the easy way out. He could have recommended that the prince ask for burdening taxes and treat his people in concordance with former apathetic rulers. Instead he merely asks for respect and loyalty from his subjects. His people may live peacefully and maintain their freedom. This freedom is more than it seems. At his own cost, the prince offers the gift of personal pursuit of happiness to his people. However, a sacrifice must be made by the Prince. His own happiness and motives are put at stake. Therefore, the prince may be perceived as a Christ-like figure. In essence, the prince is the one who redeems the world. He risks his personal conveniences and elations so that his people may hold onto theirs. Moral behavior can become extremely predictable. Once a ruler’s style of governing is consistent, he could easily be exploited. Once a strategy has been devised, enemies can move forward in warfare. Deteriorating the already severe circumstances in the principality, the rivals would raid and plunder the cities and villages. Leaving the people as the real victims and generating all kinds of havoc, there would be a complete absence of government. Eventually, the consequences of being overly moral will far surpass the trivial repercussions of being feared by the people. The prince’s actions are completely sacrificial and are in no way absurdly violent or corrupt. He therefore deals with the consequences and guilt of his actions and does not ask his subjects of any immoral behavior. He takes upon himself responsibility for everything. For his own protection from harm, Machiavelli suggests that the prince eliminate all threats against not only his throne, but his people. He must stop and eliminate individuals who are in search for only power.The fact that his people retain their honor and esteem in his kingdom remains stable and steady. The prince takes his position of power aware of the expectations and demands. One of the most important precautions a prince must take is being mindful of his position with the people. In concordance with Kemerling, the prince must be deemed moral by his people based on his personality, character, and conduct. This idea can also be found in The Prince when Machiavelli states, “ A very praiseworthy thing to find in a prince all of the...qualities which are held to be good,” which is also quoted in Rilling’s argument (Machiavelli 62). The basis of the importance of ethicality to Machiavelli is found in this statement. Without morality, civil disorder will inevitably occur. Even though uncertain, morality issues a nonviolent ground where the people may live fairly peacefully and under the same set of rules. The importance of morality to the prince is that it enables him a statute. For example, if people act and live according to their morals, the prince can eliminate his fret over predicaments like killings, thefts and unscrupulous activity. Nearly extinguishing the threats to the throne just by giving the impression of being moral, the prince may employ morality as a tool to restrain his people. If he were to be overthrown, the prince would not only lose his power, job and position, but his life. Some may think, therefore, the prince uses aggressive actions plainly to save his life.Even though it is his own, sparing a life is humane and follows the code of morality. Machiavelli suggests this for continuity. Though, this set of circumstances could be observed many different ways. Being a martyr, Machiavelli argues, is the only significant position a human could take. Because an arriving prince’s statutes may prevail over the benefits of being recognized as a martyr, this statement arouses controversy. Attaining this position simply causes the people to come to be supportive of the cause. If the prince were ever to be a martyr, the new authority could bring forth a different setting and instill atrocious conditions on the people. Morality requires that the prince live and let the people prosper and thrive under his rule, with them as his most important consideration. Machiavelli's The Prince traces the exact actions a Prince must take to hold and maintain power in his kingdom and to be successful. As the author, Machiavelli presents the idea that shrewd violence has to be executed in order to retain his position, power, and essentially his life. Also, it is strongly indicated that morality and politics cannot possibly exist in harmony. Nevertheless, the substructure for morality is found underneath this argument . For the people in his care as his top priority, the prince sustains morality through his actions, although it seems the opposite. Assuming all immoral actions and conduct for the people, the prince renounces himself, and in culmination is in fact and truth, moral.