Assuming that Machiavelli's The Prince is not total and complete sarcasm, I don't like it.
I mean, I don't like the core of it. I don't like the idea that the ruler of a city should be able to do evil in order to preserve the state. The idea that for the good of the people there are "necessary evils" which rulers should be allowed to commit is the total opposite of what I believe.
If there really is a God who loves his creatures, then doing the right thing, living honorably and acting justly. I just can't accept that the only way to govern is through necessary evil.
I'm with Plato and his philosopher kings...
..... anyone else?
I mean, I don't like the core of it. I don't like the idea that the ruler of a city should be able to do evil in order to preserve the state. The idea that for the good of the people there are "necessary evils" which rulers should be allowed to commit is the total opposite of what I believe.
If there really is a God who loves his creatures, then doing the right thing, living honorably and acting justly. I just can't accept that the only way to govern is through necessary evil.
I'm with Plato and his philosopher kings...
..... anyone else?
It certainly is very easy to agree with Machiavelli's principle when one looks at it in his shoes. However, I feel that when a person acknowledges the possibility of leadership committing evils for stability just sounds wrong. I'm with you. If one believes in God, or even the inherent idea of virtue at conception, then one should seek that first. It is harder to seek virtue consistently than it is to find alternate routes for peace. It is easier said then done, but it is obvious that virtue and wisdom are the better choice.
ReplyDeleteI agree, the government should not rule through evil means. However, I'm not sure what form of government would actually be better. As much as I would be in favor of a philosopher king, I'm not sure a person like that actually exists.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, Mallory, I don't like Machiavelli's approach... Evil should not be the means of maintaining stability. Even if the people are as corrupt as he claims, how would more corruption in the leadership solve anything? I understand why Machiavelli says it is better to be feared than loved, and why he believes a ruler should be ready to discard morals/values for the sake of maintaining the city-state. However, if one is ruling by fear and has no standard of morality or base of values from which he functions, then as a leader his facade will crumble at some point. He will not maintain the good of the city because his definition of good is flawed and dysfunctional. I think good always wins in the end, even if it seems like evil is the easier/better course of action in the moment.
ReplyDeleteJust to play the devils advocate a bit (try not to hold it against me), I think that to an extent there are "necessary evils". It's like witholding information from a child becasue they are not prepared to handle it. Is that not a lie of ommision? A sin, therefore an evil? Obviously a ruler should have morals and attempt to lead honestly and justly, but there are some times when a ruler has to bear the burden of the job. It's giving the command to drop the atomic bombs on Japan to end the Pacific Front.
ReplyDeleteI don't think Machiavelli was saying that princes could just go around doing evil. Under section 18 of The Prince, he wrote, "it is necessary for him to have a mind ready to turn itself accordingly as the winds and variations of fortune force it, yet, as I have said above, not to diverge from the good if he can avoid doing so, but, if compelled, then to know how to go about it" (p. 17). He was telling the prince to be good unless he had no alternative but to do evil. I think Machiavelli would agree with what Molly said in her comment - perhaps there are "necessary evils". Plato's philosopher kings do sound much better, but didn't he admit that actually have such a government would be virtually impossible? I'm not sure if I agree with this, but in a way, it does make sense.
ReplyDeleteMallory, a lot of this goes back to what we discussed over and over in our philosophy class. In the perfect government, a philosopher king is the best choice, and the ruler should never lie to the common people. However, the perfect city does not exist and therefore, I don't think that we can every have a large government without some white lying. I don't really know if I would want to know all of the secrets of the United States, or the threats we receive, or even all of the people who are arrested in my surrounding area. Sometimes it is better to be a little bit ignorant. However, if it were at all possible, lying should not be the way to keep people under control.
ReplyDelete