Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Niccolo Machiavelli's take on morality.

Rate this topic


Nicko0301

Recommended Posts

So I was perusing through my copy of The Prince when I stumbled upon this exerpt:

"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. Hence it is necessary that a prince who is interesting in his survival learn to be other than good, making use of this capacity or refraining from it according to need."

I think this is a very telling statement, for it evinces a belief in the conventional view of morality (i.e. that it is impracticable and that were anyone to consistently lead a righteous life, they would ensure their own demise). Furthermore, it demonstrates that even the greatest of minds are not immune to this pernicious view of morality.

Edited by Nicko0301
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I was perusing through my copy of The Prince when I stumbled upon this exerpt:

"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. Hence it is necessary that a prince who is interesting in his survival learn to be other than good, making use of this capacity or refraining from it according to need."

I think this is a very telling statement, for it evinces a belief in the conventional view of morality (i.e. that it is impracticable and that were anyone to consistently lead a righteous life, they would ensure their own demise). Furthermore, it demonstrates that even the greatest of minds are not immune to this pernicious view of morality.

It also reflects that the prevalent morality at the time was altruism, which is inherently self-destructive. A man wanting to survive and prosper was left with no choice but to be immoral. Some did attempt to have some dignity and some tried for integrity, but none could be moral.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
It also reflects that the prevalent morality at the time was altruism, which is inherently self-destructive. A man wanting to survive and prosper was left with no choice but to be immoral. Some did attempt to have some dignity and some tried for integrity, but none could be moral.

I understand what you're saying. Since I have accepted Objectivism as the philosophy to guide my decisions and actions, I always experienced fear in the face of evil and irrationality in my life. I think that it's mainly because I unconsciously think that an irrational person can't be reasoned with, and that he/she will exploit me if given the chance to do so, no matter what I do, and how I act.

So, in order to thrive in the world, is it necessary to compromise your rational morality to the prevalent amorality of the people in the city that you live in? I also know that once you give in to evil, however minute, then you cease being rational, and cannot claim to be a moral person.

What I'm really asking is how to shed this fear of irrationality and evil?

Any advice will be appreciated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand what you're saying. Since I have accepted Objectivism as the philosophy to guide my decisions and actions, I always experienced fear in the face of evil and irrationality in my life. I think that it's mainly because I unconsciously think that an irrational person can't be reasoned with, and that he/she will exploit me if given the chance to do so, no matter what I do, and how I act.

So, in order to thrive in the world, is it necessary to compromise your rational morality to the prevalent amorality of the people in the city that you live in? I also know that once you give in to evil, however minute, then you cease being rational, and cannot claim to be a moral person.

What I'm really asking is how to shed this fear of irrationality and evil?

Any advice will be appreciated.

I personally don't think you can "shed" fear as an emotion; it's there for a reason, an "early warning system" to let you know that you're values are in trouble. Perhaps you should think of the matter as one of "rational fear" and "irrational fear?"

If you're thinking of Rand's attitude via her characters (Roark to Toohey: "But I don't think of you" or Dagny: "We never had to take any of it seriously, did we?"), consider Rand's own response to this question:

Look, I have written repeatedly that one of the troubles with Americans is that they don’t believe in the reality of evil, they do not really believe how evil evil is. Therefore, you better take evil and, evil or irrationality seriously. It has to be taken seriously. Not in the sense of regarding it as important. Not in the sense of letting it determine the course of your life or your choice of career or your choice of values. But in the sense that you must not evade its existence, and you must do everything within your power—not at the price of self-sacrifice, but as you have the power and the means—to counteract evil...But to do that, you have to take the issue seriously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I was perusing through my copy of The Prince when I stumbled upon this exerpt:

"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. Hence it is necessary that a prince who is interesting in his survival learn to be other than good, making use of this capacity or refraining from it according to need."

I think this is a very telling statement, for it evinces a belief in the conventional view of morality (i.e. that it is impracticable and that were anyone to consistently lead a righteous life, they would ensure their own demise). Furthermore, it demonstrates that even the greatest of minds are not immune to this pernicious view of morality.

As for Machiavelli...George Will has said that "We honor Jefferson, but live in Hamilton's country, a mighty industrial nation with a strong central government." It's Hamilton who is called the American Machiavelli. The Prince was the bedtime storie for John Adams. "A Republic, if you can keep it," indeed...

What to do about it? Rand never discussed Machiavelli specifically, as far as I know, but her novels detail what happens if one follows that road. Wynand and Keating are my favorite examples, and Atlas shows what really goes on at "The Top and the Bottom." How do you fight it without succumbing to their fate, in the long run? Assuming one isn't trying to rationalize the necessity of being a Keating or a Wyanand: Arm yourself. The eagle on the "Great Seal" does hold an olive branch and sword for a reason. In this case, arm yourself with knowledge, knowledge of Machiavelli, of Hamilton, of Saul Alinskly, of Obama...and call them on it, relentlessly.

(It's amazing that so much is said plainly, out in the open, yet people deny their own words, even when caught red-handed. Rules for Radicals is a primer on power, and Alinsky's hubris is so great that he calls Machiavelli a piker. Hamilton, with his advice to Washington to "be not good." What's even more amazing is how people STILL believe and trust their "leaders.")

"What Can One Do?" NEVER FAIL TO PRONOUNCE MORAL JUDGEMENT.

You want a primer to arm yourself? Check out two books: The 48 Laws of Power and the The 33 Strategies of War. They're detailed histories of the Machiavellian strategies used by generals and leaders throughout the ages, from the ancients to our time. If you can recognize the methods being used by our "leaders," you're already ahead of the curve. You may not be able to convince everyone, but YOU'LL be aware, and can at least keep your own mind clear of their deception.

The rest comes down to simple honesty, and personal choices of morality.

Edited by spaceplayer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This statement is basically a testament of the false moral/practical dichotomy. Notice that no definition of WHAT are good acts is included here or HOW one acts in a good way when surrounded by the evil. Machiavelli lived amid Christians who have an intrinsic view of good and evil and who (among other things) believe in such self-sacrificial and contradictory behaviors as turning the other cheek.

An Objectivist who strives always to pursue good acts, even when surrounded by evil and irrational people, will not automatically come to ruin in the way such a Christian would because the Objectivist would always retain a non-self-sacrificial, contextual approach to ethics. This is not to say that the Objectivist would always succeed 100% in negating the bad effects of living in a society populated with irrational people, but everything that was under his control, he would control. Knowing that he had acted properly within the scope of his abilities and knowledge, he would be able to go on and live the best life that was available for him to live without ever compromising his principles or integrity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You want a primer to arm yourself? Check out two books: The 48 Laws of Power and the The 33 Strategies of War. They're detailed histories of the Machiavellian strategies used by generals and leaders throughout the ages, from the ancients to our time. If you can recognize the methods being used by our "leaders," you're already ahead of the curve. You may not be able to convince everyone, but YOU'LL be aware, and can at least keep your own mind clear of their deception.

The rest comes down to simple honesty, and personal choices of morality.

Yes, I agree that once you are aware of the philosophy that guides your adversary's actions, you have the knowledge to formulate better solutions.

Knowing that he had acted properly within the scope of his abilities and knowledge, he would be able to go on and live the best life that was available for him to live without ever compromising his principles or integrity.

The knowledge of having acted properly is often enough of a self-esteem booster.

Great advice guys

Thanks for taking the time.

Edited by Dynamite
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...