Machiavelli Essay, Research Paper

Machiavelli: A Rational and Immoral Writer

Paper #1

After reading the writings of Machiavelli it can be surmised that he was not a moral writer of his generation but can be more accurately viewed as a political writer. Machiavelli’s family history and personal experiences were assets that he employed in his writings to further his political position.

Machiavelli was greatly influenced by the politics of his time and the political positions of his father. His father held positions as a jurist and a minor official. Machiavelli grew beyond the ambitions of his father and gained the position as the Secretary of the Second Chancery. It was while in this position that he gained his extensive experience as a diplomat. He relied on this experience and his talent as a writer to express his political views and to gain favor with politicians of his time(Hutchins, ix-x).

His work completed in The Prince demonstrates his views and political growth that he gained in his position as the Secretary of the Second Chancery. Much of his writings are historical perspective of the politics of that time period. Machiavelli was not just interested in the accurate reporting of the politics but also attempted to further his career as a politician.

Machiavelli attempted to use his writings in The Prince to gain favor with Lorenzo De Medici, the ruler of Florence at that time. His attempts to gain favor failed and he was then removed from his political position. His failure to gain favor may be due to the fact that his views seem to contrast with the beliefs and morals of that time.

He views of political power and influence for personal and political gain were stressed more so than morality. Machiavelli felt morality hindered the process of governmental power and that rulers should not need to worry about whether their acts were moral or immoral. Machiavelli encouraged the use of force in politics with beneficial ends to justify evil means.

Controversy surrounded The Prince from the beginning and in 1559 it was included “on the papal Index of Prohibited Books” (Salmon). Much of this controversy came from Machiavelli’s support of a secular society and thoughts of the unimportance of morality in politics. He thought that morality got in the way of productive rulers. Machiavelli’s writings emphasized a prince should maintain power instead of serve the well being of the citizens. The people of his time were greatly offended and could not believe that a person would have “evil thoughts like the ones in The Prince” (Niccolo). One passage from The Prince particularly offensive to the common people is “And he who becomes master of a city accustomed to freedom and does not destroy it, may expect to be destroyed…”(8). In reading lines like this it is no surprise that Machiavelli received little praise.

Machiavelli could not rightfully be considered a moral writer for his time or any other. Morality is a constant throughout time or as stated in Contrasting Views on Machiavelli “… morality may be thought of as an absolute.” Basically it is always wrong to murder “no matter what the reason” (Works). The overly violent methods of ruling and lax morals suggested by Machiavelli would not qualify as religiously moral for any era.

In a few lines of The Prince vague traces of morality can be found such as, “Yet it cannot be called talent to slay fellow-citizens, to deceive friends, to be without faith, without mercy, without religion…” (13). In those cases he was generally telling the prince to appear moral to win the love of his people. Also, when he spoke positively of God, it was to assure that God was there to guide them towards their goals (De Grazia 56-58).

Machiavelli was obviously a man of political not religious fervor. One place to note his political fervor is his love of the governmental positions he held. Yet another way he made his love of politics noticeable is the fact that he wrote so much on the subject. Machiavelli’s love and knowledge of politics help to explain his ultimate purpose in writing The Prince. As he says in The Prince “…Italy, left as without life, waits for him who shall yet heal her wound…”(36). Machiavelli was directing all his political ambitions towards instructing a prince how to unite Italy politically. This is where an exception in criticism can be found with “nationalists who found inspiration in his call for Italian unification.” (Works). In writing The Prince he put aside religious morals and concentrated on politics.

The Prince is a book which has influenced politics for approximately five hundred years. Machiavelli was the first to rationally analyze politics. He was harsh and even immoral. However he was honest about what he saw historically to be true of human nature. Virtue is needed to be a good ruler. Success still goes to those who make wise and speedy choices. Few would reason that the end justifies the means. Despite its faults The Prince is considered a classic.

Works Cited

De Grazia, Sebastian. Machiavelli in Hell. Princeton: UP, 1989

Hutchins, Robert Maynard, ed. “The Prince.” Trans. W.K. Marriott. Great Books of the Western World: 23 Machiavelli Hobbes. Chicago: William Benton, 1952. ix-37.

Niccolo Machiavelli. (Feb. 3, 2001).

Salmon, Merrilee H. Landmarks in Critical Thinking Series: Machiavelli’s The Prince. 1995. (Feb. 3, 2001).

Works of Niccolo Machiavelli: Contrasting Views on Machiavelli. 2000.

(Feb. 4, 2001).