NationStates Jolt Archive

This is a discussion/debate on morals. Machiavelli seemed to think that a leader's responsibility was to his people, rather then to his morals. When sometimes, he may be doing something ethically correct, it could be selfish at the same time. He might be sacrificing his people for his own greedy desire not the feel guilty.
He even went so far as too say a lot of good rulers will be going to hell, and a lot of bad ones, to heaven. According to him, a leader should be prepared to go to hell for his people, if it is his responsibilty.
"Always let your conscience be your guide"? Maybe in personal dealings, but in dealings with others, it might be selish?
Discuss...

This is a discussion/debate on morals. Machiavelli seemed to think that a leader's responsibility was to his people, rather then to his morals. When sometimes, he may be doing something ethically correct, it could be selfish at the same time. He might be sacrificing his people for his own greedy desire not the feel guilty.
He even went so far as too say a lot of good rulers will be going to hell, and a lot of bad ones, to heaven. According to him, a leader should be prepared to go to hell for his people, if it is his responsibilty.
"Always let your conscience be your guide"? Maybe in personal dealings, but in dealings with others, it might be selish?
Discuss...

Go watch the movie Hero.

Learn to speed read, then watch Hero. I was the only person in my family who could read the subtitles, and they were too fast to read alloud.

I havent read The Prince, but from what I've heard about it, I dont like its methoods anyway, they seem quite stalinist.

I havent read The Prince, but from what I've heard about it, I dont like its methoods anyway, they seem quite stalinist.
FAR FROM IT! It's a book on gaining and holding power. It's got a bad wrap because Hitler slept with it under his pillow.
I don't know what you call "Stalinist", but he is an Anti-Machiavelli.

FAR FROM IT! It's a book on gaining and holding power. It's got a bad wrap because Hitler slept with it under his pillow.
I don't what you call "Stalinist", but he is an Anti-Machiavelli.
Sounds pretty Stalinist to me. Stalin built a big military to keep someone from overthrowing him, then kill off most of the people in the military because they might overthrow him, then built a large military to destroy anyone who tried to overthrow him, then destroyed his family because they tried to overthrow him....

I think a leader's responsibility is to lead his people morally.

Sounds pretty Stalinist to me. Stalin built a big military to keep someone from overthrowing him, then kill off most of the people in the military because they might overthrow him, then built a large military to destroy anyone who tried to overthrow him, then destroyed his family because they tried to overthrow him....
Okay, Machiavelli advocates assassination on certain ocassions, but not this.
First of all, killing your best generals because of paranoia, would be critized by him severly. Second, your familly he says are your greatist supporters, and you need to protect them.
Thirdly, he says you should be kind, and popular with your people. Hmmm...was Stalin kind and popular with his people?

Okay, Machiavelli advocates assassination on certain ocassions, but not this.
First of all, killing your best generals because of paranoia, would be critized by him severly. Second, your familly he says are your greatist supporters, and you need to protect them.
Thirdly, he says you should be kind, and popular with your people. Hmmm...was Stalin kind and popular with his people?
Nope. But mentioning this would have been a better arguement for Stalin and Mach being totally different than what you first put.

Nope. But mentioning this would have been a better arguement for Stalin and Mach being totally different than what you first put.Possibly. If you mean my first post, that was not to show their difference. Machiavelli says breaking morals is sacrificing a clear conscience for your people's sake. Stalin, however does it for himself.

Possibly. If you mean my first post, that was not to show their difference. Machiavelli says breaking morals is sacrificing a clear conscience for your people's sake. Stalin, however does it for himself.

No, your second post in this thread.

No, your second post in this thread.
Ah, I see then. All is clear.

i agree with Machiavelli as there are solutions to many of the modern worlds problems its just most are not ethical, if a leader cold be willing to be the bad guy to fix them then they would be solved, of course there's a lot of poeple around who would say, there's got to be a better way, but sometimes we have to face facts and say, this is the way even if its unethical.

Ethics a day keeps corruption away.

This is quite curious. Though it is often easy to declare that one will simply do “the right thing,” actually performing that task becomes rather difficult when one is confronted with actually having to figure out what exactly the “right thing” to do is.

There is one part of this case that I would like to raise an objection towards. Machiavelli categorizes the leader’s subjects as one entity with one interest (that of “the people”). But any population is comprised of many individuals with different interests. Some may stand to lose in a decision where some may gain. So it would be rather unfair to characterize the leader/people relationship as being either in sync or antagonistic. At any given time there may be some who will benefit and some who will suffer.

What seems more curious to me is the notion that a person can be considered greedy for trying to act virtuous. Perhaps that raises a question of what motivates virtue. Can people act virtuously out of spontaneous generosity, or must it come from a less noble incentive – perhaps a desire for recognition or feelings of self-satisfaction? But are noble acts less virtuous if the intentions are ignoble? Suppose there is a child drowning in a raging torrent. Let us imagine two scenarios. In one situation, a man who genuinely wants to save the child tried but fails. In the second scenario, a man who wishes only for fame and a reward from the rescue attempt tries and succeeds. Can either situation be considered virtuous or good? In the first scenario, the man fails by his intentions were pure. In the second situation, the man is far from virtuous, but at least the child is safe.

All of this, however, is moot since in order for the assertion that an ethically correct act is inherently selfish to be true it must be assumed that all virtuous acts arise from selfish motives. A single case of a virtuous act enacted purely for the sake of virtue itself undermines the assertion that an ethically correct act is selfish.

With that said, there still lies the more painful problem. Machiavelli suggested that there may be some circumstances, though certainly not all, where a virtuous act can be selfish. But by the very definition of the words, this seems to be impossible. If an act is motivated by selfish desires, then it could be considered, by definition, not virtuous. Would it be virtuous for a man to save a child from drowning if he only desired a reward and had no consideration for the child’s well-being? It may be a good thing that the child was saved, but the rescue effort is no more virtuous to the man than if he had saved a rock. Still, a child is quite different from a rock.

Looking at it from the opposite end, what if we imagined that a noble act was committed out of a fear of guilt? This may be closer in spirit to what Machiavelli was considering; but for some reason, this view seems somewhat less reprehensible. After all, we are all victims of fear in some form or another, and psychologists would contend that fear is a very natural biological mechanism that serves important functions. But is a refuge from fear defensible if it comes at a cost to others? Returning to the child in the torrent analogy, let us assume that the man truly wants to save the child for sake of saving a life. But he is conflicted by his fear of rushing water despite being able to swim. On the one hand, it could be considered cowardly for him to let the child die on account of an irrational fear. At the same time, even if the fear is misplaced, the man could become so paralyzed with fear that he is unable to swim and therefore (should he try to rescue the child) jeopardizes both his life and that of the child’s.

Hmmm, After all of this ranting, I have arrived at no substantial conclusion. I suppose that all I can offer now is a feeble response that it would depend heavily upon the specific situation. It is unfair to blanketly describe this scenario as virtuous or ignoble since that would fail to take in account the countless variables involved in individual situations.

Go watch the movie Hero.
If by 'Hero', you mean the Jet Li movie:
Watch it, but keep in mind that it was made in and for China.
So it has not-very-subtle polictical overtones about the current Chinese communist party. All that stuff about how the peon doesn't understand the sacrifices the emperors making and that their suffering now is only because the emperor knows what's best for them in the long run.
Change emperor to PRC and you have typical Chinese TV propoganda fare.

Other than that, it's a decent movie.

See, this is what so many people miss when they claim that Machiavelli was among the first truly modern theorists of politics.

He was still puzzling over a problem that fascinated the Greeks--that a good citizen, or a good ruler, may not have the same characteristics as a good person (or a good "man", as the Greeks would have it).

See, this is what so many people miss when they claim that Machiavelli was among the first truly modern theorists of politics.

He was still puzzling over a problem that fascinated the Greeks--that a good citizen, or a good ruler, may not have the same characteristics as a good person (or a good "man", as the Greeks would have it).
Absoulutely. As-a-matter-of fact, in "Discourses", he was talking about how a man should be hung for doing something out of politics, but doing that same thing in them, he should be commended.

I like Machiavelli's propositions. He is basically a proponent of realpolitik. Namely, that a leader could and, actually, should be good when he can, and use deception and force when the need arises. His notoriety is unfairly gained. To him, it is a leader's ultimate responsibility that he secure his nation's welfare, but also that he learn how to hold on to power effectively. He suggests a number of methods. His work is interesting in many regards. Reading it made me realise in how many ways Bush actually has gone wrong.

Machiavelli adhered to a very Nietzschean point of view; namely, that it is the end, and not the means, which must be justified. Doing good and intending to do good, accordingly, are two different things, and only the second bears any merit. I agree with him. As it is commonly said, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

I like Machiavelli's propositions. He is basically a proponent of realpolitik. Namely, that a leader could and, actually, should be good when he can, and use deception and force when the need arises. His notoriety is unfairly gained. To him, it is a leader's ultimate responsibility that he secure his nation's welfare, but also that he learn how to hold on to power effectively. He suggests a number of methods. His work is interesting in many regards. Reading it made me realise in how many ways Bush actually has gone wrong.

Machiavelli adhered to a very Nietzschean point of view; namely, that it is the end, and not the means, which must be justified. Doing good and intending to do good, accordingly, are two different things, and only the second bears any merit. I agree with him. As it is commonly said, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Well, technically, Nietzsche held Macchiavellian views. ;)

One can't have a clear idea of Macchiavelli's ideas unless one reads The Discourses. Most people read The Prince, but the real meat is in The Discourses, where Macchiavelli examines various forms of government, past and contemporary to his time -- strengths, weaknesses, what they do right, where they go wrong, in peace, in war, etc. Ultimately, I think Macchiavelli was arguing for a pragmatic approach to achieving ideals.

For instance, the OP's point about a leader having to compromise his own ethics to safeguard his people. In The Discourses, he talks about the difference between sacrificing one's ethics and corrupting one's ethics. He talks about the ways historical leaders walked the thin line between what they believed was right and what would be right for their people. And he talks about the traps that certain kinds of governments create for leaders, especially authoritarian ones, with either implied or explicit comments about those being bad forms of government. For instance, let's say a pacifist is elected US President and he disbands the armed forces and shuts down the Pentagon because he believes war is evil. According to Macchiavelli, he has just sacrificed his people for the sake of his own personal beliefs, and this selfish dereliction of his duty and betrayal of the public trust outweighs the value of his personal morals. But Macchiavelli does not imply that a pacifist could never be President -- just that he must either compromise himself or find some way to lead that will walk the line between morals and duty.

I'd also like to point out, to those who think Macchiavelli's views support authoritarian government, that he wrote his books while serving time in prison for having supported a plot to overthrow the dictatorial Duke of Florence (who had been installed by the Vatican after overthrowing the Republic of Florence) and to reinstate the Republic. Macchiavelli considered self-governing republics to be the best form of government, though he was not naive about it and described their faults and weaknesses clearly.

Finally, my favorite parts of Macchiavelli are where he writes about politics and forms of government, not about leaders. I think The Discourses serves as a handy handbook of how governments work, don't work, succeed, fail, get corrupted, get clean of corruption, etc. A handbook about how power gets structured. Amazingly, everyone can use his principles to safeguard their own power, rights, and liberties, no matter what their place in society.

Knowledge is power. If you know how the machine works, then you know how to make it work.

With Macchiavelli, the system becomes a game everyone can play.

One can't have a clear idea of Macchiavelli's ideas unless one reads The Discourses. Most people read The Prince, but the real meat is in The Discourses, where Macchiavelli examines various forms of government, past and contemporary to his time -- strengths, weaknesses, what they do right, where they go wrong, in peace, in war, etc.
I know. I looked everywhere for that book, and finally had to order it online...it's still coming.
WHY is it not popular? It's just as important, if not more, as The Prince to read.

I know. I looked everywhere for that book, and finally had to order it online...it's still coming.
WHY is it not popular? It's just as important, if not more, as The Prince to read.
The Prince is shorter, so it's easier to read in a class setting. *shrug*

Do what thou wilt and let that be the whole of the law.

--Crowley

The Prince is shorter, so it's easier to read in a class setting. *shrug*
No doubt the prince is an excellent book, but it's dressed-up to please who it's dedicated to.