Page 79 - DPOL201_WESTERN_POLITICAL_THOUGHT_ENGLISH

Unit 5: Niccolo Machiavelli

that while the cultivation of souls and personalities might be the proper end of man, Notes
it did not provide the focus of political action. This can be stated more strongly by
saying that the new science was not conceived as the means to human perfectibility.
Double Standards of Morality

For Machiavelli, a successful ruler or state was one which would be able to acquire, maintain,
consolidate and increase power. The survival and the preservation of the commonwealth was his
fundamental concern. He prudently calculated the likely consequences of political actions that
would achieve national safety. A state and a ruler had to be judged by an independent criterion,
the morality of success, which was protection of citizens guaranteeing their well-being, expansion
of territory and a zealous safeguarding of national interests. Politics was ultimately and finally a
constant struggle for power and domination, which had to be judged by its own rules and norms
so that states survived. Machiavelli pointed out that in writing about the rules of politics he was
projecting the real truth and not leaving anything to imagination. Commenting on the gulf between
ought and is, Machiavelli observed that
... the fact is that a man who wants to act virtuously in every way necessarily comes to
grief among so many who are not virtuous. Therefore if a prince wants to maintain his
rule he must learn how not to be virtuous, and to make use of this or that according to
need ... . Everyone realises how praiseworthy it is for a prince to honour his word and
to be straightforward rather than crafty in his dealing, nonetheless contemporary
experience shows that princes who have achieved great things have been those who
have given their word lightly, who have known how to trick men with their cunning,
and who, in the end, have overcome those abiding by honest principles.
Machiavelli did not condone the use of immoral or wicked ways. To him, the end was important,
which could be attained by any means. He arrived at this understanding after observing the
political game from close quarters in which ends justified the means. He contended that a ruler
need not always adhere to conventional morality rather he should be willing to do so. He also
insisted that a private individual would have to display impeccable moral values of the highest
order. For Machiavelli, the home and family nurtured these moral values, teaching the individual
the virtues of independence, simplicity, purity, loyalty and trust. He emphasized that an individual
adhered to these values, whereas a statesman could be flexible as far as the conduct of state affairs
was concerned, but not in private dealings.
Machiavelli separated the private from the public sphere of morality. While the state had a morality
of its own—the morality of success—the private individual was at all times to display qualities
that were in consonance with the highest moral standards. He spoke of the raison d’etat of the state.
In politics, fair was foul and foul was fair, depending on circumstances and situations. No general
rule was valid, for everything became a matter of political expediency. A prince had to be
compassionate, humane, loyal, and honest, while simultaneously willing to use force, fraud,
deception and treachery. Machiavelli argued that political actions were to conform to high moral
standards, namely compassion, good faith, trustworthiness and honesty in times of stability.
However, in times of strife, chaos and disorder, principled politics would spell ruin. He asserted
that power was anything but divine, and to think that states came into existence by the will of God
was absurd. He also rejected the divine rights theory of kings.
Machiavelli’s attitude to religion and morality made him highly controversial. Strauss (1958: 5)
characterized him as a teacher of evil. Sabine (1973: 320) saw him as being amoral. Unlike Sabine,
Pocock (1971: 160) following Pollock (1911: 43) attributed it to his scientific detachment, enabling
him to merely list the rules for political success, without being judgemental. The ruler, for
Machiavelli, was a technician. In order to master the art of illusion, he had to be a skilful pretender
and dissembler with seemingly good qualities. As to whether morality was coextensive of success,
Machiavelli observed:

LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY 73