Machiavellian Objectivism

[Quin]

Next to The Fountainhead, The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli is my favorite book. I picked it up a year before I first read Atlas Shrugged and I openly admit I still view the world in mostly a Machiavellian way. Last Sunday I had a short discussion about this with Boldstandard about my views on other people. I told him that I would clarify my views in this thread.

As far as personal values, I hold the Objectivist tenets to be true, and I keep my integrity. However, as far as other people go, I generally hold them to Machiavellian rules. As I said to Boldstandard, people are stupid, and it has been like this throughout history. I am not sure whether it will change in the future or not, but generally people will follow a few simple laws, that can be found in The Prince. An example is this quote from "Concerning Things for which Men, and Princes Especially, are Praised or Censured"

Many men have imagined republics and principalities that never really existed at all. Yet the way men live is so far removed from the way they ought to live that anyone who abandons what is for what should be pursues his downfall rather than his preservation; for a man who strives after goodness in all his acts is sure to come to ruin, since there are so many men who are not good.

It seems that this has brought me to an incredibly cynical view of people. I also happen to be generally right except for a few people who even more coincidentally (or perhaps not) I hold in high regard.

Boldstandard asked if I related to Gail Wynand. I replied that I did in many ways, with the exception of a few of his actions. I am asking though, does this pragmatic view of other people make me less rational?

[SkyTrooper]

I was actually largely influenced by Machiavelli and modern day personal subjectivist Robert Greene right around my sophmore year of college. The main problem with this type of philosophy is that you are pandering to the irrationality of others for your survival, instead of to their reason. It was only after re-reading the "48 Laws of Power" that I realized that almost every character held up as a brilliant practitioner of "power" in Greene's books ended up dead or worse. Personal subjectivism is not a viable long term strategy for life.

Altruists say you should sacrafice yourself to others, Machiavellians say you should sacrafice others to yourself, and Objectivists are oppossed to human sacrafice on principle. There can therefore be no such thing as "Machiavellian Objectivism."

[lex_aver]

I haven't read Machiavelly, but I can make a few conclusions based on the quote you gave.

Many men have imagined republics and principalities that never really existed at all. Yet the way men live is so far removed from the way they ought to live that anyone who abandons what is for what should be pursues his downfall rather than his preservation; for a man who strives after goodness in all his acts is sure to come to ruin

How ought man to live? If moral is practical, and Objectivism holds it is, then living morally advances you to prosperty. But you claim that living morally actually results in catastrophe, so basically you reject that the goal of any moral code is to promote man's life and its purpose is your own life. If you don't than you must admit that Machiavellian moral code simply doesn't fit its purpose.

for a man who strives after goodness in all his acts is sure to come to ruin, since there are so many men who are not good.

That part of your quote is particularily intersting. Why do immoral people cause moral man's defeat? If they purposely try to ruin your life, than according to Objectivist ethics it is morally proper to refrain from any relationships with those people and go to woods; there you will be happier then in immoral society. If they don't, than how their mere rejection of proper moral code can ruin your life? In case with Objectivist ethics, it can't - moral man is self-sufficient and can exist by himself, both Howard Roark and John Galt survived in immoral world. So I conclude that the ethics you hold proper advocate dependence. From what badkarma556 wrote, I can guess that Machiavellian ethics are in fact a variant of prudent predator ethics, and according to it some men (called Princes) are not to produce values, but to take them from other men, for whom it is proper to give up those values. If you hold such morality proper, than yes, by refusing to give up their values, other men can choke you because by assuming a role of Prince, you give up your productivity.

Accepting such ethics indeed does make you cynical, if you want to live: you think that others are evil because they deny you your rightful Princehood, but you understandably don't want to be Man either, so you damn others and lead amoral life yourself, not following moral code you accept. Such life is incompatible with integrity.

I hope that now once you learned about Objectivism and reclaimed your integrity, you will learn, accept and follow Objectivist ethics. Best of luck!

[Quin]

Let me reiterate one of my points, I live by Objectivist principals, but I view others in Machiavellian terms. In other words I don't sacrifice my integrity for accumulation of power. I only actually act on these Machiavellian ideas if force is used against me unjustly.

How ought man to live?

It is quite obvious that Machiavelli was following the Christian perspective of what is moral. However, it isn't a stretch to say that this could apply to the Objectivist view of what is moral.

If moral is practical, and Objectivism holds it is, then living morally advances you to prosperty.

What do you mean by prosperity in this context? Do you mean a large income or happiness?

[exaltron]

Altruists say you should sacrafice yourself to others, Machiavellians say you should sacrafice others to yourself, and Objectivists are oppossed to human sacrafice on principle. There can therefore be no such thing as "Machiavellian Objectivism."

Well put, and I would add that ironically, this is how many people view Objectivism: That pursuing your own self-interest (or advocating selfishness) means that you advocate screwing over the other guy wherever possible. Of course nothing could be further from the truth.

From what badkarma556 wrote, I can guess that Machiavellian ethics are in fact a variant of prudent predator ethics, and according to it some men (called Princes) are not to produce values, but to take them from other men, for whom it is proper to give up those values. If you hold such morality proper, than yes, by refusing to give up their values, other men can choke you because by assuming a role of Prince, you give up your productivity.

I would definitely recommend the prudent predator thread for more on why sacrificing the rights of others necessarily means sacrificing your own rights (since you become a moral advocate of selectively applied rights, which means you destroy the concept of rights).

[Bold Standard]

Boldstandard asked if I related to Gail Wynand. I replied that I did in many ways, with the exception of a few of his actions. I am asking though, does this pragmatic view of other people make me less rational?

I would say technically it does, since part of being rational is being consistent in your views, and Machiavellianism is inconsistent with Objectivism. There is a reason Gail Wynand ended up as he did in The Fountainhead, and I think it's usually the same way for people who act on his principles in real life (to the degree they do so consistently).

But, I think the most helpful thing for you to do to resolve this would be to study Objectivist critiques of Machiavelli, and of similar philosophies. There is an excellent analysis of Machiavelli in Leonard Peikoff's Founders of Western Philosophy lecture series. The whole series is fascinating and very informative. But Dr. Peikoff puts Machiavelli in an historical context, which I believe is vital to understanding him, as well as contrasting his views to Objectivism and to other philosophers.

Another thing about your post that makes me curious is your description of your view as "pragmatic". I wonder if you are influenced by the ethics of the philosophy of pragmatism as well as by Machiavelli. If so, Dr. Peikoff's lecture series on Modern Philosophy will be of great interest to you as well. He devotes two lectures specifically to pragmatism, as well as continually referring back to it and tracing its influence in subsequent philosophies. Very interesting stuff. (These lecture series are available individually or together as a set at the Ayn Rand Bookstore).

Edited September 1, 2007 by Bold Standard

[AMERICONORMAN]

Here's to high hopes:

I would say that the world needs more Objectivist Machiavelli's--at least in this sense: we need more men willing to look at the history of the modern world, with a special emphasis on the goodness of America, and the impact of America on the rest of the world (economically and militarily); a man willing to accept the Objectivist moral code, and willing to endorse it in his history; who is willing to look at the trends of history and to criticize the altruist-collectivist or Machiavellian codes, in contrast to rational egoism, individual rights and Capitalism; able to unearth the crimes of our politicians and the gems who made a vital difference; able to report of how states rise in power, in our industrial-technological civilization. Our Machiavelli would embrace wealth creation and trade as a noble endeavour for power. He would have to look also at the espionage of our time and how the republics of the world acquired nuclear power, our ultimate power, the tactics of deception and being clandestine, how the evil states acquired such power, and how and why the good republics let them. Our Machiavelli would teach us of how today's game is really played, behind the scenes--and he would give us the prescription of how to fight it to achieve a truly noble republic. Our Machiavelli, in singing his song to us, would awaken us to this aspect of our dawning new renaissance.

[FrolicsomeQuipster]

Let me reiterate one of my points, I live by Objectivist principals, but I view others in Machiavellian terms. In other words I don't sacrifice my integrity for accumulation of power. I only actually act on these Machiavellian ideas if force is used against me unjustly.

It is quite obvious that Machiavelli was following the Christian perspective of what is moral. However, it isn't a stretch to say that this could apply to the Objectivist view of what is moral.

What do you mean by prosperity in this context? Do you mean a large income or happiness?

If people initiate force against you its okay to be ruthles in eliminating that threat.

But if somone is just acting like a Toohey towards you the worst thing you could do against them is to expose them.

And from what I know about Machiaveli he's indeed talking about ethical systems in wich acting moral is indeed self destructive.

As for you last question it is what I would call a false dichotomy, if you cach my drift.

[AMERICONORMAN]

If people initiate force against you its okay to be ruthles in eliminating that threat.

But if somone is just acting like a Toohey towards you the worst thing you could do against them is to expose them.

And from what I know about Machiaveli he's indeed talking about ethical systems in wich acting moral is indeed self destructive.

As for you last question it is what I would call a false dichotomy, if you cach my drift.

Actually this is interesting you brought this up: though Machiavelli seems to accept the Christian morality as something as a moral standard, there is a contradiction implied in him, an implied admiration for the moral virtues of the men of the Roman Republic--from what I've read so far, the first book of his discourses.

It is also interesting, that what Machiavelli believes has not yet been stated in this thread, which is one reason why I returned it to our attention.