The Qualities of the Prince, Essay Example

In his essay, “The Qualities of the Prince,” Niccolo Machiavelli is well known for the pragmatic, even cynical perspective on getting and keeping power.  His philosophy has often been labeled one of “the ends justify the means.”  In essence, this claims that Machiavelli believes any action at all is justified so long as it results in a desired—and worthy—goal being achieved.  One element of this definition needs further clarification: what defines a “worthy” goal?  To answer that, it is important to bear in mind the intended audience for Machiavelli’s work, and the era in which it was written.  His work was written originally as a guide for princes—those who have or aspire to wealth and political power in the fragmented Italian city-states of the late 15^th and early 16^th century. Thus, his work was not written for “the masses” or for general consumption; it was intended as a guide to assist princes (and aspiring princes) in gaining and keeping political power.

As noted in the text, however, Machiavelli never actually wrote “the end justifies the means”—instead he wrote, “…in the actions of all men, and especially of princes, where there is no impartial arbiter, one must consider the final result” (Machiavelli, para. 24,  p. 49, and note 17). In other words, he did not give a blanket permission to do anything at any time, but instead, advised the importance of weighing the possible results of all actions, and determining which ones would be most effective for the desired goals. If those actions, taken out of context, might not be labeled virtuous, that did not matter, so long as, if taken in context, they proved effective at producing the desired goal.  Context, to Machiavelli, was everything. Thus, the essay can be considered the first example of political image manipulation—in other words, Machiavelli was the first, and possibly the greatest, spin doctor.

The essence of modern image manipulation is that appearances are everything and the truth can be—and perhaps should be—far different from what is reported to others or what others perceive.  This is essentially the lesson that Machiavelli conveyed in this essay. While he appeared to condone any action that achieves the desired ends, he also maintained the critical importance of “keeping up appearances” of being morally correct.  In essence, he insisted that while it was important to be willing to do anything to get and keep power, he also insisted that princes must generate a public persona that was far more acceptable to others, and that only such actions that are effective should be taken.  In other words, he did not espouse cruelty for the fun of it, or lies to deceive for no purpose.  He advised that all actions and all words be carefully weighed and thoughtfully executed.

Key to Machiavelli’s reasoning was that practicing what might be virtues in a less powerful person often turn out to be vices in a prince. He gave examples for exactly that type of paradoxical result in each of the sections: how generosity can actually turn into rapaciousness; how mercy can actually transform into cruelty; and how keeping one’s word can also turn into the necessity of lying.  These are all predicated on his belief that, at base, people are actually not very virtuous, particularly when issues of power and wealth are involved.  A common man may have the luxury of dealing only with those of good character, but a prince is forced, by the very nature of his position, to deal with all men, good and bad.  Since bad men often are those who aspire to power, the prince often must deal with far more bad men than good ones.  Thus, in order to grasp and maintain his power, the prince must be prepared to fight fire with fire, and vice with vice.

One illustrative example from Machiavelli makes this clear.  In discussing the issue of whether a prince should keep his word, he specifically points out:

You must, therefore, know that there are two means of fighting: one according to the laws, the other with force, the first way proper to man, the second to beasts, but because the first, in many cases, is not sufficient, it becomes necessary to have recourse to the second. (Machiavelli, para. 20, p. 48).

In these lines, Machiavelli made clear that a true prince must be willing to fight either as a man—with diplomacy, tact, and other lawful methods—but also as a beast, with its tooth-and-claw alacrity of murder, deception, force, and other  vice-filled means. Men who aspire to power and wealth are beasts, he seems to say, and the law does not work with beasts. Beasts only acknowledge force, so they must be dealt with using force.

The key difference between Machiavelli and Martin Luther King, Jr. lies in their views of the status of certain laws as being higher than others.  Machiavelli believed that all those who aspire to power and wealth were ultimately vice-ridden, “beasts,” in his words, and that no law—moral or legal—applied when dealing with such beasts. In contrast, while Dr. King was willing to break the laws of the land to achieve his goal of eliminating racial segregation, he was only willing to break unjust laws. He believed just laws must not be broken, and even defined such laws explicitly: “A just law is a manmade code that squares with the moral law or the law of God” (King, para. 16, p. 218-219). In contrast, Machiavelli would never have consented to sit in jail for a cause and let the legal system grind its slow way to his desired end.  The difference between him and Dr. King is one of degree rather than complete contrast. Dr. King placed moral law above the legal system. He was willing to break laws that were in conflict with moral law—but he was not willing to break moral laws.  Machiavelli, in contrast, considered no laws as sacrosanct.

While Machiavelli did not exactly promulgate the concept of “the ends justify the means,” he did advise that a prince should make careful, thoughtful consideration of actions and words, and, when dealing with vice-filled men, must not hamper himself by arbitrarily ruling out immoral or illegal actions.  Such niceties only apply toward dealing with human beings, and in Machiavelli’s view, those snapping at the heels of princes are not men, but beasts.

References

King Jr., M. L. “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” In A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers, 8^th Edition, Lee A. Jacobus, Ed. Boston, 2010,  MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s. pp. 211-232.

Machiavelli, N.  “The Qualities of the Prince,” In A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers, 8^th Edition, Lee A. Jacobus, Ed. Boston, 2010,  MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s. pp. 37-53.