The Prince is a work that, despite Its bleak assessment of human nature, remains firmly grounded in the Renaissance humanist tradition_ No more apparent Is Machiavellian emphasis on individual freedom of choice and the authority of observation, as opposed to that of religion, than In the above passage. While the author concedes that fortune plays an integral role in the life of a prince or aspiring prince by, for example, providing opportunity (Machiavelli 26), these humanistic nets drive the essence of Machiavellian argument that the ends ultimately justify the means.
That Machiavellian stated purpose Is to “say something that will prove of practical use” (Machiavelli 65) Is of particular significance because It both delicately and violently attacks the worth of such philosophical systems as neo-Platonism and the moral burdens of Christianity. In true humanist form, Machiavelli cites only historical observation when he writes of the “real truth” that morality is like a powerful noble, o be employed only at one’s advantage and, when detrimental, promptly disposed of. This is a rather shocking, radical statement Indeed.
What, however, Machiavellian simultaneous use of delicate language and violent implications does Is help separate the man from his words. Instead of overtly denouncing as foolish the teaching of Christian morality, he instead deems it “proper to represent things” as they truly are the intimation of the former statement remains, but Machiavelli takes his own advice on outward appearance to preserve himself. This Is comparable to Vocation’s tenement In the epilogue to Dodecahedron that “no story Is so unseemly as to prevent anyone from telling it, provided it is told in seemly language” (Vocation 798).
The radical approach to morality of which Machiavelli Is a proponent Is similarly dualistic. The discussion of cruelty earlier In The Prince, for Instance, Illustrates perfectly his overarching notion that no action that produces a good end (preserving the state) can be bad the author measures virtue by result, not by intention. Further justifying this argument, Machiavelli ascribes to all of humanity the blame for a urine’s “need to not be virtuous,” writing that a prince abundant with virtue Is irreconcilable with a populace deficient in it.
Again, Machiavelli demonstrates his humanistic tendencies, as the limits of man (in this case, those of the prince) are governed not by the invisible forces of divine caprice, but by the moral predilections of man and man alone. It is worth discussing, then, what Machiavellian personal view of successful princes’ morality may have been. If an always virtuous prince “necessarily comes to grief,” long with his state, then another Justification for Machiavellian radical approach Is that the prince’s actions are not freely chosen a good prince must perforce act viciously at times.
Copious generosity, for example, is ultimately maligned, while 1 OFF Handful’s Drywall TTY Is aware In Owe course. Man cannot De Trace to ay g within Machiavellian framework, he can be forced to do bad to be cruel, to murder, to incite war between two foreign nations. For an action to be his own in the full sense of implying responsibility, he must choose it, and therefore, good or evil actions are ere actions.
If a prince’s bad actions are not free, as Machiavelli suggests, then they are not morally worthy of praise or blame. This Justification forms the basis on which modern realistic stands, and on which such wartime methods as torture and targeting civilians are defended. Machiavellian voice has truly served as adviser to many a “prince,” and, as it has proven compatible with practically every form of government and even intellectual attitudes such as humanism, it will likely echo in the minds of many more to come.