“The Prince”: An Examination of Machiavelli’s Position and its Moral Consequences

I. Introduction

The political insights of Niccolò Machiavelli expressed in The Prince, are widely celebrated for their astute political insights. However, in this article, I will argue that a closer examination of the arguments presented in the book reveals moral ambiguities, challenges to democratic ideals, and the potential to empower tyrannical dictators. Through an exploration of the text, I aim to unveil the problematic nature of Machiavelli’s philosophy, exposing its potential dangers in a contemporary political context. 

II. Il Principe

The Prince was written as a guidebook for inexperienced leaders, advocating for the utilization of morally questionable tactics to secure political supremacy, epitomized by the adage, “The ends justify the means”. 

This approach reduces individuals to mere instruments for political ends, stripping them of their intrinsic worth. Consequently, it fosters an environment where anyone seen as a threat to a leader faces the prospect of being destroyed, irrespective of their potential contributions to the greater good of society.

Furthermore, Machiavelli argues for the use of “cruel” means to achieve political ends. He says:

“A prince, therefore, must not mind incurring the charge of cruelty to keep his subjects united and faithful.”

It is crucial to acknowledge the potential ramifications of his principles, which, while appearing justifiable on the surface, can inadvertently fuel the emergence of genocidal regimes with catastrophic consequences for society. This article will delve into the argument that Machiavellian political philosophy has contributed to the proliferation of “autocratic democracies”, wherein governments begin to prioritize themselves, rather than their citizens. The moral fabric of society is sacrificed at the altar of Machiavellian pragmatism. 

III. Autocrats and Governance 

In Machiavellian science, we are taught that: 

 “Politics have no relation to morals” (i)

Quotes of this nature evoke a legitimate concern regarding governments prioritizing their interests at the expense of fundamental moral principles. Such prioritization can provide a rationale for genocidal regimes to perpetrate atrocities under the guise of political expediency. The Holocaust serves as a chilling example, wherein over six million Jews were systematically murdered by the Nazis. Oskar Groening, a member of the Schutzstaffel (SS), referenced a speech by Heinrich Himmler, often regarded as the mastermind behind the Holocaust, to justify the killing of innocent children and babies. Himmler's speech invoked German nationalism as a pretext, arguing that sparing these children would eventually lead to retaliation against future generations.

This sentiment is coincidentally also expressed in The Prince when Machiavelli says: 

“Men ought either to be indulged or utterly destroyed, for if you merely offend them, they take vengeance, but if you injure them greatly, they are unable to retaliate, so that the injury done to a man ought to be such that vengeance cannot be feared.” (1)

Although there is no concrete proof that the Nazis were directly influenced by Machiavellian ideologies, we must tread on the side of caution. Governments are meant to serve their people, but when serving their people coincides with immoral actions, we must never tolerate such actions. Today, parallels can be made to global conflicts, echoing similar tactics of destroying a society (through its future/roots), valuing one group over another, simply because the latter wields power, and thus, according to Machiavelli, the right to “injure them greatly” so that “vengeance cannot be feared” is ensured. 

“It is better to be feared than to be loved, if one cannot be both.” (i)

III. Factions and Polarized Society

A respns for arguments, such as those presented above, goes something like this:

“We must be pragmatic, the morality of humanity as a collective can never truly exist”. And while I agree with the general sentiment, I believe we must, again, tread with caution. 

When statements like (1) are mean as advice to a novice “prince”, they further become engulfed into the realm of opinionated factions (observed in nationalism, and other forms of zealotry), as they become obsessed in identifying their “enemies” and attempt to destroy them as a whole. 

In the Federalist Papers (#10), James Madison (later to become the fourth President of the USA) concludes that factions like these break apart a republic, as they alienate opposing views thus creating mass polarization (a phenomenon that can be observed in modern US politics as well). This alienation also subtly devalues the feelings and values of people who hold opposing views (seen in Himmler’s argument as well). 

Additionally, even today, majoritarian group that wield power (usually in the forms of government) contribute to this dehumanization of their opponents. 

Echoing the utilitarian beliefs of Peter Singer, and those alike, I believe that governments should not act as self-serving factions, that will selfishly, and capitalistically devalue, and destroy anyone that opposes them. As John Stuart Mill remarks in “On Liberty”, silencing those who oppose you inhibits societal growth, destroying the path which leads man to truth. Governments cannot serve as factions of their supporters, rather, they must serve as leaders of society as a whole, valuing each individual equally. 

In the event of provocation necessitating action against a perceived adversary, it is imperative to refrain from collectively punishing an entire group for the transgressions of a few. Machiavelli's oversight in The Prince lies in the absence of clear parameters regarding the circumstances in which a ruler may justify such abhorrent actions. This lack of specificity leaves excessive room for interpretation.

IV. The Means and The Ends 

Do the ends justify the means?

The inquiries into whether the ends justify the means find their origin in a blunt yet fair encapsulation of Machiavelli's principles in The Prince. Although Machiavelli does not explicitly state “the end justifies the means” in his works, his analysis in the Discourses on Livy, where he examines Titus Livius’ Roman History to glean insights from past mistakes, offers a pertinent perspective.

“For although the act condemns the doer, the end may justify him"

Many adherents of Machiavellian philosophy attempt to justify this claim, by stating: 

“Machiavelli in all cases is implying that ‘the means’ matter, and ‘the ends’ don’t magically justify them, yet sometimes it is worth accepting all the ramifications of “unjustifiable means,” and the damage they do to one’s reputation, for the end goal. In other words, the ends don’t cancel out the means in every respect, but they may none-the-less justify to some extent the original less-than-virtuous actions needed to secure the ends (it is a warning not to be too pious when dealing with politics, not a suggestion that putting aside virtue has no consequence)” (2)

Even some of the most exquisite philosophical texts crumble under similar scrutiny. They don’t sufficiently define their terms. The importance of defining our terms is highlighted when Socrates said: 

“The beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms.”

I am by no means attempting to devalue the legacy and works of these brilliant philosophers, but rather attempting to call attention to a fundamental flaw in theory and practice. Sufficiently defining one’s relevant terminology, is nearly impossible to achieve. There will always be ambiguities present in any argument, whether philosophical or not. 

But, when concerning matters of governance, I believe that Machiavelli’s arguments do not have the adequate definitions to put his philosophy into practice, without neglectfully creating a breeding ground for egotistical autocrats. The vast majority of Machiavelli’s arguments made in The Prince, shouldn’t be pieces of advice for any new “prince”. 

 IV. Conclusion

To conclude, while studying The Prince we must tread with caution. Although there are a lot of great maxims regarding leadership, such as: 

“He who wishes to be obeyed must know how to command”

“The best fortress which a prince can possess is the affection of his people.”

I believe that because Machiavelli doesn’t sufficiently define his political “terms”, his words lead to the enablement of mass government, the creation of factions, the polarization of said factions, and, most importantly, the government that serve its their own interests, rather than the interest of its citizens, and humanity as a collective.