Machiavelli’s Political Philosophy
Niccolò Machiavelli, the Italian political philosopher and writer, has often been associated with ruthless political tactics and a willingness to set aside traditional moral values to pursue power.
His seminal work, “The Prince,” is frequently regarded as a handbook for tyrants, outlining strategies for rulers to maintain their grip on power using deceit, manipulation, and violence.
However, upon closer examination of Machiavelli’s writings, consideration of the historical context in which they were written, and exploration of his conception of virtù, it becomes evident that his philosophy is more accurately described as “moraline-free” rather than immoral.
Machiavelli’s Historical Context
To better understand Machiavelli’s moraline-free approach to politics, it is essential to consider the historical context in which he lived and wrote.
Renaissance Italy was a tumultuous period marked by constant power struggles, shifting alliances, and wars among rival city-states.
As a diplomat and civil servant in the Republic of Florence, Machiavelli had firsthand experience with the instability and treachery that characterized the politics of his time.
For instance, Machiavelli had three notable encounters with Cesare Borgia, the infamous military leader, and politician who was a central figure in the Italian Wars of the late 15th and early 16th centuries.
The first encounter occurred in 1502 when Machiavelli was sent to meet with Borgia on behalf of the Republic of Florence.
Borgia had recently conquered the city of Urbino and was consolidating his power in the region.
Machiavelli observed Borgia’s military tactics and his methods of subjugating his enemies, and he was impressed by his cruelty and strategic insight.
This encounter profoundly impacted Machiavelli’s political philosophy, which emphasized the importance of power and the willingness to use any means necessary to achieve it.
The second encounter occurred in 1503 when Borgia sought Florence’s support in his campaign to conquer the Romagna region. Machiavelli, who was by then a high-ranking official in the Florentine government, met with Borgia to discuss the terms of an alliance.
Borgia offered Machiavelli insights into his military tactics and his methods of political control, which further influenced Machiavelli’s thinking.
The third encounter occurred in 1506 when Borgia was captured by the Spanish and imprisoned.
Recently dismissed from his post in the Florentine government, Machiavelli sought to gain Borgia’s favor and secure a position in his court.
However, Borgia was ultimately released, and Machiavelli’s hopes of serving him were dashed.
These encounters with Borgia left a deep impression on Machiavelli and influenced his political philosophy, particularly his ideas about using force and deception in politics.
While Borgia was a controversial figure, admired by some for his military prowess and criticized by others for his brutality, his interactions with Machiavelli helped shape the latter’s ideas about power and politics.
Against this backdrop, he penned “The Prince,” aiming to provide a realistic and practical analysis of political power dynamics.
The Prince
Machiavelli’s Prince can be seen as a descriptive analysis of the methods employed by successful rulers rather than a normative guide for how rulers ought to behave.
Throughout the book, Machiavelli examines various political strategies and tactics, often citing historical examples, to demonstrate their effectiveness in achieving and maintaining power.
In doing so, he deliberately avoids making moral judgments, focusing instead on the pragmatic outcomes of these actions.
For instance, in Chapter 17, Machiavelli discusses the importance of force and cruelty in establishing control over newly conquered territories.
He writes:
Continuing with our list of qualities, I’m sure every leader would wish to be seen as compassionate rather than cruel. All the same, he must be careful not to use his compassion unwisely. Cesare Borgia was considered cruel, yet his cruelty restored order to Romagna and united it, making the region peaceful and loyal. When you think about it, he was much more compassionate than the Florentines, whose reluctance to be considered cruel led to disaster in Pistoia. A ruler mustn’t worry about being labeled vicious when it’s a question of keeping his subjects loyal and united; using a little exemplary severity, he will prove more compassionate than the leader whose excessive compassion leads to public disorder, muggings, and murder. That kind of trouble tends to harm everyone, while a ruler’s death sentence affects only the individuals involved. But of all rulers, a man new to power simply cannot avoid a reputation for cruelty since a newly conquered state is a perilous place. Virgil puts these words in Queen Dido’s mouth: ‘The difficult situation and the newness of my kingdom Force me to do these things, and guard my borders everywhere.’ (Res dura, et regni novitas me talia cogunt Moliri, et late fines custode tueri.)
This statement is not an endorsement of cruelty but rather an observation of the necessity of such actions to consolidate power and maintain stability — that, at every level, power is generated through some cruelty.
When considering “good” and “bad” from this perspective, one isn’t worried about whether they have been a “bad person” and thus “ought” to feel “guilty” about it; instead, one is worried whether they’ve made an “error” in judgment resulting in negative consequences concerning their status of power.
And given that politics is definitionally the pursuit of power, cruelty is of the highest value within political contexts.
Without question, no matter what the political system in place preaches as its core values, this pursuit — and its endless competitors and superfluities — even in the cases where power is denounced, such denouncement is but a mask for the same end.
In this sense, Machiavelli thinks that the “ends justify the means.”
Machiavelli cites the example of Cesare Borgia, who used deception, manipulation, and cruelty to secure his power in Romagna.
While he acknowledges the moral reprehensibility of Borgia’s actions, he emphasizes the effectiveness of such tactics in stabilizing the region.
Machiavelli’s focus here is not on the morality of Borgia’s methods but on their practical consequences.
Machiavelli’s Immoralism
Machiavelli’s moraline-free approach is his belief that a ruler’s primary responsibility is to ensure the stability and prosperity of their state.
In Chapter 18 of The Prince, he explicitly states that a ruler should not be bound by conventional morality, writing:
Since a ruler has to be able to act the beast, he should take on the traits of the fox and the lion; the lion can’t defend itself against snares and the fox can’t defend itself from wolves. So you have to play the fox to see the snares and the lion to scare off the wolves. A ruler who just plays the lion and forgets the fox doesn’t know what he’s doing. Hence a sensible leader cannot and must not keep his word if by doing so he puts himself at risk, and if the reasons that made him give his word in the first place are no longer valid. If all men were good, this would be bad advice, but since they are a sad lot and won’t be keeping their promises to you, you hardly need to keep yours to them. Anyway, a ruler will never be short of good reasons to explain away a broken promise. It would be easy to cite any number of examples from modern times to show just how many peace treaties and other commitments have been rendered null and void by rulers not keeping their word. Those best at playing the fox have done better than the others. But you have to know how to disguise your slyness, how to pretend one thing and cover up another. People are so gullible and so caught up with immediate concerns that a con man will always find someone ready to be conned.
This statement suggests that rulers must be adaptable and willing to employ a range of virtuous and morally questionable tactics to fulfill their obligations to the state.
Machiavelli further underscores this point by arguing that rulers should be willing to break promises and treaties when it is in their best interest.
Again, Machiavelli focuses on the pragmatic outcomes of political actions rather than on the moral implications of those actions.
This perspective reflects a moral neutrality that prioritizes the stability and well-being of the state above all else.
Moreover, Machiavelli’s moraline-free approach is evident in his treatment of the various virtues rulers traditionally praise.
In Chapter 23, he acknowledges that virtues like generosity, honesty, and mercy are desirable but asserts that rulers should not be held to these ideals if they undermine their ability to maintain power.
So a ruler must always take advice, but only when he wants it, not when others want to give it to him. In fact he should discourage people from giving him advice unasked. On the other hand he should ask a great deal and listen patiently when an adviser responds truthfully. And if he realizes someone is keeping quiet out of fear, he should show his irritation. Many people think that when a ruler has a reputation for being sensible, it’s thanks to the good advice he’s getting from his ministers and not because he’s shrewd himself. But they’re wrong. There’s a general and infallible rule here: that a leader who isn’t sensible himself can never get good advice, unless he just happens to have put the government entirely in the hands of a single minister who turns out to be extremely shrewd. In this case he may well get good advice, but the situation won’t last long because the minister will soon grab the state for himself. If on the other hand he’s taking advice from more than one person, an ingenuous ruler will find himself listening to very different opinions and won’t know how to make sense of them. Each of his advisers will be thinking of his own interests and the ruler won’t be able to control them or even sense what’s going on.
Machiavelli’s Human Nature
Another aspect of Machiavelli’s moraline-free philosophy is his understanding of human nature.
He believed humans are inherently selfish and driven by self-interest, so rulers should not be constrained by moral principles when making decisions.
In Chapter 17, he discusses whether a ruler should be loved or feared and reflects that answering this depends on having a distinct sense — without any sentiment — of human nature:
We can say this of most people: that they are ungrateful and unreliable; they lie, they fake, they’re greedy for cash and they melt away in the face of danger. So long as you’re generous and, as I said before, not in immediate danger, they’re all on your side: they’d shed their blood for you, they’d give you their belongings, their lives, their children. But when you need them they turn their backs on you. The ruler who has relied entirely on their promises and taken no other precautions is lost. Friendship that comes at a price, and not because people admire your spirit and achievements, may indeed have been paid for, but that doesn’t mean you really possess it and you certainly won’t be able to count on it when you need it. Men are less worried about letting down someone who has made himself loved than someone who makes himself feared. Love binds when someone recognizes he should be grateful to you, but, since men are a sad lot, gratitude is forgotten the moment it’s inconvenient. Fear means fear of punishment, and that’s something people never forget.
This observation of human nature further supports Machiavelli’s morally neutral political approach.
By recognizing that individuals are often motivated by self-interest, he provides a pragmatic framework for rulers to navigate the complexities of political power without being hampered by conventional morality.
Virtù: The Driving Force Behind Machiavelli’s Moraline-Free Approach
A critical concept in Machiavelli’s political philosophy is virtù, central to understanding his moraline-free approach.
Virtù, an Italian term often translated as “virtue,” carries a different meaning in Machiavelli’s writings.
It refers to a combination of qualities such as skill, prowess, intelligence, and adaptability that enable a ruler to navigate the complexities of power effectively.
In other words, whatever quality enables one to gain and maintain political power is an instance of moraline-free virtù.
A ruler with virtù can make pragmatic decisions, unhindered by conventional moral values, to ensure the stability and prosperity of their state.
For Machiavelli, virtù is about understanding the ever-changing dynamics of power and having the ability to respond to these changes with decisive action, even if that action may be morally questionable.
In “The Prince,” Machiavelli offers several examples of rulers who exemplify virtù through their actions.
For instance, he discusses the case of Cesare Borgia, whose use of deception and cruelty allowed him to consolidate power in Romagna.
While Borgia’s actions may be morally reprehensible, Machiavelli highlights the effectiveness of these tactics in achieving the desired outcome — a stable and secure state.
Virtù as a Guiding Principle
In a moraline-free approach to politics, virtù is the guiding principle that directs a ruler’s actions.
Instead of adhering to a prescribed set of moral values, a ruler with virtù focuses on achieving their goals through pragmatic decision-making, employing both virtuous and morally questionable tactics as required.
In this context, virtù becomes a flexible and adaptable attribute that allows rulers to navigate the complexities of power effectively.
It emphasizes the importance of understanding the ever-changing dynamics of political power and being able to respond with decisive action, regardless of the moral implications of those actions.
Virtù and Human Nature
Machiavelli’s conception of virtù is also closely linked to his understanding of human nature.
As mentioned earlier, he believed humans are inherently selfish and self-interest-driven. In light of this, virtù represents the ability to recognize and exploit these human tendencies for the benefit of the state.
For instance, Machiavelli’s preference for rulers to be feared rather than loved stems from his understanding of human nature.
He believed fear is a more reliable motivator than love because it is rooted in self-preservation. Rulers with virtù recognize this and use it to maintain power and control over their subjects.
Machiavelli’s Will to Power
In light of Machiavelli’s moraline-free approach to politics, it is interesting to consider a connection to Nietzsche’s observations on the inherently exploitative nature of life, as outlined in his work “Beyond Good and Evil,” section 259.
Nietzsche writes:
“‘Exploitation’ does not belong to a corrupted or imperfect, primitive society: it belongs to the essence of being alive as a fundamental organic function; it is a result of genuine will to power, which is just the will of life.”
He emphasizes that life itself is a process of appropriation, overpowering, and exploiting, not driven by morality or immorality but by the nature of life itself.
This perspective resonates with Machiavelli’s pragmatic approach to politics found above.
Machiavelli’s “Discourses on Livy” offers valuable insights into human nature and the dynamics of political power, which can be connected to Nietzsche’s observations on the inherently exploitative nature of life.
In Book 1, Chapter 16, Machiavelli writes:
“Whoever takes up the governing of a multitude, either by way of freedom or the principality, and does not secure himself against those who are enemies to that new order makes a state of short life. I indeed judge unhappy princes who have to hold to extraordinary ways to secure their states since they have the multitude as enemies. The one who has the few as enemies secures himself easily and without many scandals. Still, he who has the collectivity as the enemy never ensures himself, and the more cruelty he uses, the weaker his principality becomes. So his greatest remedy is to seek to make the people friendly to himself.”
This passage emphasizes the importance of securing oneself against potential enemies to maintain political power.
Machiavelli recognizes that individuals and groups will naturally seek to exploit their circumstances and position to their advantage, reflecting Nietzsche’s idea of life as inherently exploitative.
The interpretation of this passage highlights the depth of the will to power in the context of politics.
Machiavelli deems friendliness to the body politic to restore equilibrium in one’s [self-perception of] power rather than for the sake of moral goodness.
Insofar as we see politicians acting benevolent, it is not because they’re looking to bestow goodness upon us but instead seeking to detract attention away from their poorer qualities.
This perspective further reinforces the connection between Nietzsche’s philosophy and Machiavelli’s political insights.
By understanding the motivations and power dynamics that shape human societies, it is possible to better comprehend the intricacies of political life and the development of institutions.
The connection between these two philosophers emphasizes the fundamental aspect of human nature as driven by the will to power rather than by an inherent sense of morality.
Machiavelli’s conception of virtù is integral to his moraline-free approach to politics.
By focusing on the pragmatic analysis of power dynamics, virtù serves as the driving force behind his philosophy.
Rulers with virtù can make decisions unencumbered by traditional moral values, employing a range of tactics to ensure the stability and prosperity of their state.
In essence, virtù provides a framework for rulers to navigate the complexities of political power effectively, embracing both virtuous and morally questionable actions as required by the ever-changing landscape of power.
By understanding the nuance and complexity of Machiavelli’s ideas, we can appreciate — without necessarily endorsing it — his moraline-free approach as a pragmatic and adaptive guide for rulers in their pursuit of power and stability.
Upon closer examination of Machiavelli’s writings, when considered in their historical context and through the lens of his conception of virtù, reveals a moraline-free approach to politics that prioritizes the stability and prosperity of the state above all else.
This perspective aligns with Nietzsche’s observations on the inherently exploitative nature of life and the will to power that drives human action.
Machiavelli’s moraline-free philosophy emphasizes the importance of understanding the motivations and power dynamics that shape human societies.
These are, fundamentally, those dynamics that Jean-Jacques Rousseau picked up on in his second discourse, “On the Origin of Inequality” — namely, that an essential feature of all human society is the inequality of human beings from one another:
As soon as men began to appreciate one another and the idea of respect was formed in their minds, everyone claimed to have a right to it, and failing to respect someone was no longer possible with impunity. From that emerged the first duties of civility, even among savages, and consequently deliberate wrong became an outrage, because, along with the harm resulting from the injury, the offended party often considered the contempt for his person more unbearable than the harm itself. And so, because each man punished the contempt which had been shown to him in a manner proportional to his own self-esteem, acts of vengeance became terrible, and men bloody and cruel. This is precisely the stage reached by the majority of savage peoples known to us. And because several peoples have not sufficiently distinguished among ideas and observed how distant they already were from the first state of nature, they have rushed to conclude that man is naturally cruel and needs civil order to mollify him; whereas nothing is as gentle as he is in his primitive state, when, placed by nature at equal distances from the stupidity of beasts and the lethal enlightenment of civil man and equally limited by instinct and by reason to protecting himself from the harm which threatens him, he is restrained by natural pity from doing harm to anyone himself, since nothing inclines him to do so, not even after he has been harmed himself. For, according the axiom of the wise Locke, There can be no injury where there is no property.
By recognizing human nature’s inherent selfishness and self-interest, rulers can navigate the complexities of political power without being constrained by conventional morals.
Instead, they can rely on virtù as a guiding principle, allowing them to adapt to ever-changing power dynamics and make pragmatic decisions that benefit their states.
The connection between Machiavelli and Nietzsche underscores the idea that human nature is driven by the will to power rather than by an inherent sense of morality.
This insight has significant implications for understanding the development of societies, the intricacies of political life, and the decisions that leaders make in pursuit of power.
Ultimately, the moraline-free approach to politics offered by Machiavelli provides a valuable framework for analyzing the dynamics of power and human nature in a way that transcends traditional moral values.
By embracing this perspective, we can gain a deeper understanding of the forces that shape our world and the complex interplay between power, human nature, and the development of societies.
