"The Prince is a concise statement of Machiavell's belief that classical and Christian political theory is unworkable in a world that defines politics as the exercise of power and the struggle for power. It is also implicitly a rejection of a nihilistic counterethic, that only power and brute force matter."
- (Dante Germino, Machiavelli to Marx: Modern Western Political Thought, p. 32)
Discuss to what extent you agree or disagree with this statement. What evidence can you bring to support your position?
Many would argue that the first statement is wrong on the grounds that there is no apparent moral that Machiavelli emphasizes over another. He seems to have written the most unbiased textbook since the dawn of man and as such these accusations seem to fall dashed against the sheer rock of his neutrality. However, this neutrality is, in and of itself, a statement of morality.
ReplyDeleteHe is saying that things can be examined from a purely scientific view, one which denies the existence of “morality” or treats it merely as another observable phenomenon which yields certain favorable or unfavorable consequences. Thus his moral system consists of simply accomplishing goals by any means necessary, knowing that certain means produce certain results one can simply pick the plan they happen to like best. The point here is not that he advocates one type of tyranny over another, but that he advocates a purely factual analysis.
This, of course, demonstrates how the second statement seems to err. He seems to put forth a world where the struggle for power is all there is and that any means to obtain or maintain that power are viable. This is a veritable textbook for the politically inept teaching all methods as equal and workable means to a desired ends.
So how does one come to the conclusion that he is against the very morality displayed in his book? By putting forth an opinion so strongly, dominion at all costs, he effectively dissuades his audience from that path. That is to say, he shows the blood and guts of that morality and we are disgusted thus proving an unsaid point. The difference is in what the book actually says and how it is perceived. So, by showing the reality of the nihilistic counter ethic in its entirety he dissuades us from that mode of though.