The amoral prince

It is clear that Machiavelli has higher priorities than the moral actions of the prince.

Machiavelli gives us Maximinus as an example: Ethics Machiavelli presents his stance on morality first through his rejection of morality as a viable framework, and second through his promotion of virtu, glory, and reputation, which brings considerations outside of the amoral nature of the search for power.

Accomplishing X entails either method Y or method Z. From this one would conclude that Machiavelli is a promoter of amoralism, but as we The amoral prince see he does have respect for some goals beyond only power and stability.

While any prince can achieve and maintain power, glory remains a more elusive goal. First Africa rebelled, and then the senate and the whole population of Rome; soon all Italy was conspiring against him. In this instance he simply felt being feared was the safer alternative.

As this is not the case, leaders are forced to beat evil doers at their own game when necessary. For the leader though, power is always a consideration, and subsequently morals are never the most pressing goal. Anyone who wants to act the part of a good man in all circumstances will bring about his own ruin, for those he has to deal with will not all be good.

There is still an implication that it is better to have power without glory, than it is to have neither.

For that matter, it can be argued that there are other more subtle ways to win support than cruelty and benevolence. More fundamentally, Machiavelli does not see class conflict as a driving force behind political structures.

The Amoral Prince

By such means one can acquire power but not glory. His own army turned against him… Seing so many united against him, they lost their fear of him and killed him. Consequently, in describing the great struggle between commoners and nobles, Machiavelli does not side with either group.

Machiavelli does obviously have some moral compass, as he feels that good actions do have a value over evil actions when power is not a consideration.

So it is necessary for a ruler, if he wants to hold on to power, to learn how not to be good, and to know when it is and when it is not necessary to use this knowledge.

But he also admits that the two are not equal in honor The amoral prince glory, and, perhaps, even moral worth. Instead of worrying about his own morals, the leader needs to instead worry about their absence in others: The appearance of morals has its own important ends, of causing the populace to respect their ruler, but this is not the same as being an actually moral person.

In addition to trying to outsmart those who would do evil against the prince, the prince should also make efforts to discourage future acts of evil by others, and subsequently prevent future necessitation of his own harsh acts: Yes, Machiavelli does teach us that evil acts are occasionally necessary, but purely as a means towards the stable foundation that allows a ruler to lead with success and morality.

Evil for the sake of itself is actively discouraged. Still, it is clear that glory is something desirable of itself, and that it cannot be achieved through immoral means. Whether a prince uses cruelty or benevolence to obtain that support is secondary to the necessity of gaining the support itself.

For consistency with the premise that maintenance of power is the end goal, any loss of it would seem the ultimate shame. Instead, glory is something that should be sought, and shame avoided, in quantity.

Superficially, this statement brings Machiavelli in line with political philosophers such as Karl Marx, who view class conflict as an inevitable aspect of civilized society.

In this case it seems more about the spectacularity of the failure, and presumably the endurance of the subsequent shame in public memory.

Glory and reputation then seem to be partly a search for a lasting memory of greatness within the public consciousness, not just for the preservation of the state.

Rather, it is one of a number of challenges that a prince must learn to negotiate if he is to be successful. Were these simply means to state stability, it is expected that a ruler should achieve exactly as much as is necessary. Although Machiavelli is primarily concerned with how princes perform as rulers, he also gives an assessment of the different kinds of princes.

Machiavelli is more than the amoral pragmatist he is sometimes made out to be. One might ask, for example, whether there are other ways of becoming a prince besides prowess, fortune, crime, and favor.

Y is preferable to Z, so a prince should choose method Y. And it may be possible that there are other, more various factions within cities besides commoners and nobles. A prince then, once he has attained his power, must have moral considerations at heart.- Prince Hamlet Versus Machiavelli's Prince The Prince is a celebrated and highly controversial piece of work by the Italian aristocrat Niccolo Machiavelli.

His work is a summation of all the qualities a prince must have in order to remain in his position. The above question calls for an opinion, and I don't think your teacher wants my opinion of the Prince in terms of practicality or amorality.

he/she wants your opinion. Thus, I am attaching a link to a discussion forum on the above subject. Machiavelli is more than the amoral pragmatist he is sometimes made out to be.

The distinction made between power and glory indicates that, in Machiavelli’s view, some princes are better than others. While any prince can achieve and maintain power, glory remains a more elusive goal. If you are amoral, you're not a jerk, you just don't know that what you're doing is wrong.

In the s, Robert Louis Stevenson, author of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (among other treasures), coined the word amoral to differentiate from immoral.

A prince then, once he has attained his power, must have moral considerations at heart. Machiavelli’s prince is by no means an immoral or even amoral actor, though he may occasionally commit immoral acts, in the search for power. Is The Prince moral, immoral or amoral?

Most people who have heard of Niccolò Machiavelli would associate the Florentine with unscrupulous ness and deceitful ness, which they feel, is epitomised in his pamphlet, The Prince.

The amoral prince
Rated 4/5 based on 8 review