Machiavelli The Prince Rhetorical Analysis

The Prince, by Machiavelli is inovative in its approach to seperate politics and ethics. Machiavelli is successful in distinguishing the differences and seperation neccessary to govern accordingly by his use of historical evidence to ground The Prince in real situations. He uses many Roman/classical examples to illuminate his points. Machiavelli's knowledge and study of classical history allows him to strengthen his ideas, by rooting them to an era of growth and prosperity. Machiavelli also uses the Roman/classical era to learn from the failures of these civilizations and suggest ways to better his own Florentine society.
Machiavelli’s ethical paradigm can be summarized very well in the phrase, “the end justifies the means, if the end is

good”. As a political philosopher, by good, Machiavelli refers to the good of the state, the ultimate Common Good, whether carried out by a Prince or Republic. He also implies that it is right for statesmen to accomplish good for the state, and that it is wrong not to do so. He conflicts with Christian morality, at this point, stating that, although a Prince can be moral, immorality is far more effective in statesmanship, and that moral Princes are ultimately taken advantage of by immoral Princes: “The…man who wants to act virtuously…comes to grief among so many who are not virtuous*,” (Machiavelli 1981, 91)
Nonetheless, Machiavelli also believes it is very important for a Prince to appear moral, religious, honest, and compassionate, in order to gain the trust of others. Still, a Prince must only appear to practice these Christian virtues, if he is to succeed at practicing Classical virtù in his statesmanship. Further in Machiavellian ethics is the allegory of the lion and the fox. Machiavelli believes that a Prince should act like a lion, strong and forthright, or a fox, cunning and sneaky, depending on the situation. In relation to this, Machiavelli discusses whether it is better to be more feared or more loved. A Prince acting as a lion would be fearful, possibly acting cruelly to his own people, when necessary, thereby instilling fear into the hearts of those within his country and of foreign powers; in the case of the former, afraid to rebel, and in the case of the latter, hesitant to invade or to fight the Prince’s armies. A Prince acting as a fox would pass laws to guarantee his and the state’s safety, at the pleasure of others, in prevention of uprising from the nobility or populace, or invasion by foreign powers. It should be evident then that the Prince as a lion would be feared and as a fox would be loved. Machiavelli, however warns of two things: that if circumstance allows a choice between the two, it is much better to be feared than loved, because of Man’s ungrateful nature, and that if one is a feared Prince, then one must make an effort not to be a hated Prince, as it is possible to be feared and not hated. To this effect, a Prince must keep certain people happy, whether noble or popular, in order that if the other rises up against him, he has allies to aid him. In effect, Machiavelli teaches that it is wise to appear moral and honest, to be more feared than loved, but to keep allies happy in case of rebellion.
In terms of the ethics of political organization, that is to say, the age-old dilemma of how government should be structured, Machiavelli presents a solution. Machiavelli’s goal is to create a society that adheres to Classical virtù, and he believes that, initially, only absolute monarchy can accomplish this. The Prince was written partially for the purpose of teaching absolute monarchs, or Princes, how to accomplish this. Copleston reinforces, however, Machiavelli’s republicanism. He states that Machiavelli believed that although an absolute Prince is more effective in passing “virtùous” laws, a Republic is more effective in upholding them, once they are set. The reason being is that absolute Princes are most interested in personal gain and self-preservation, while Republics are more concerned with the General Good, the rights of the people, and the strength of the state. For this reason, people are also more motivated to fight, militarily, for a Republic than for a Prince. To this effect, Machiavelli explicitly states that the military should be a state’s primary concern, for “the first way to lose your state is to neglect the art of war; the first way to win a state is to be skillful in the art of war,” (Machiavelli 1981, 87) In plainer language, Machiavelli subscribes to the maxim, “might makes right”, and also believes that enforcing by arms is much more effective than enforcing by laws. In summary, Machiavelli believes a state should start with an absolute Prince, creating laws of virtù, and then it should become a Republic, in order to enforce those laws in the interest of the General Good. In either case, a strong military to enforce the rule of the state, within, and against foreign powers, is absolutely vital.
Machiavellian anthropology directly affects Machiavellian ethics, in the sense that Machiavelli’s cold, pragmatic views of right and wrong are affected by his view of humanity. Machiavelli’s thought on human nature is that men are ungrateful, fickle, dishonest, cowardly, and greedy, among other evil traits. Machiavelli’s belief that human nature is “egoistic, evil, and corrupt”, as stated by Copleston, leads to his pragmatic philosophy, putting what is effective over what is good. In this sense, Machiavelli is a realist, not an idealist, believing that what is practical, not what is moral, works best because human nature is corrupt, and does not respond as well to moral methods as immoral methods, when dealing with the state. This practical philosophy is referred to as pragmatism. Also, the evil in human nature is a reason for why Machiavelli says that moral Princes come to grief, and why he believes it is right to do evil to accomplish a worthy goal. After all, if others are evil at heart, regardless, would it not then make sense to harm them before they can harm you? Machiavelli also admired the unscrupulous and strong-willed, while scorning the humble as weak and useless. This leads one to believe that Machiavelli thought the best that can be drawn from human nature is the use of evil to gain power and, in the case of statesmen, maintain a state.
Further notes on Machiavelli should also be mentioned, as they are seemingly insignificant, but truly crucial in understanding his philosophy. Firstly, Machiavelli was a historical philosopher, meaning that he cited examples from the ancient past and his present to prove his arguments, believing that history repeats itself, regardless of the current situation’s difference to the past. Nonetheless, one studying Machiavelli should note the time and place he lived in was the Italian Renaissance, which factored into his bias as an Italian patriot wishing to free and unite his divided country. Also, although Machiavelli was a political philosopher, one can interpret his philosophy in terms of one’s everyday life, using others to get ahead and accomplish one’s goals. In summary, when studying Machiavelli, it is important to remember the bias he had as a Renaissance Italian patriot, and that his philosophy is not limited to the political life.
Machiavelli’s pragmatic philosophy justifies evil for the good of the state by citing a belief that man is naturally evil, aiming for a secure and powerful state. Ethically, Machiavelli believes that accomplishing an end that is good demands any means are necessary. In terms of anthropology, Machiavelli believes all men are evil, justifying his ethics. Furthermore, Machiavellianism passes the “Four Tests”, albeit conditionally. Finally, one should consider the application of Machiavelli’s philosophy to ordinary life and the effects it can have on society if everyone subscribes to such a pragmatic, and ultimately, pessimistic paradigm.
Fortune controls half of human?s actions, and man?s will controls the other half. Virtue is the best defense for fortune, and virtue must be used in order to keep fortune in check. The prince must take advantage of situations based solely on if it is best for the state. He should choose his decisions based on contemporary and historical examples. A prince cannot consider whether his acts are moral or immoral, and he instead must act in an unbiased manner for the state. Also, it does not matter how the state achieves its goals, as long as these goals are achieved. Finally, regardless of the personal morality involved, the prince should be praised if he does good for the state and berated if he hurts the state. Machiavelli?s principles have widespread influence, and they are quite similar to some of Thomas Hobbes ideas in Leviathan.

Machiavelli has a very low opinion of the people throughout history.

In general, he feels that men are "ungrateful, fickle, liars, and deceivers." "They shun danger and are greedy for profit; while you treat them well, they are yours. They would shed their blood for you ? but when you are in danger they turn against you." Machiavelli basically has little respect for the people, and he feels as though they have not earned much either. He uses this as justification for the use of fear in order to control people. He also feels that men are "wretched creatures who would not keep their word to you, you need not keep your word to them." This sense of fairness justifies breaking one?s word to men. Machiavelli also writes about how hard it must be for a prince to stay virtuous. He concludes that with so many wretched men around virtue is hard to create in oneself. "The fact is that a man who wants to act virtuously in every way necessarily comes to grief among so many who are not virtuous." Overall, Machiavelli is very pessimistic about the abilities of the people. He feels that after examining people through history, his conclusions of wretched men are

correct.

Machiavelli tells us that the sovereign must take whatever action is necessary to maintain order in society. In time this will result in the most compassionate choice too. Machiavelli explains that, Cesare Borgia, by using cruelty was able to achieve order and obedience in Romangna. This contrast with the inaction of the Florentines, who allowed internal conflict to develop in Pistoia, resulting in devastation of the city. Therefore, a number of highly visible executions can be a very effective means of controlling the people and in preventing a major out break of violence and murder. Machiavelli also cites the tremendous military successes of Hannibal. Even though Hannibal led an army of different races over foreign soil, he never had any dissension because of his reputation of extreme cruelty. Machiavelli further concludes that it is difficult to be loved and feared simultaneously. Hence, one should always prefer to be feared than to be loved. During adverse times, the fear of punishment is far more effective in maintaining control than depending people?s goodwill and love. Finally, excessive leniency will lead to ruin, because leniency is seen as a sign of weakness. A good historical example was when Scipio?s armies mutinied against him in Spain.

Machiavelli talks consistently about the Roman Empire and its rulers.

Particularly, he stresses the importance of having a strong army and popular support by the army and people. The Roman emperors proved to us many times that a ruler who is perceived to be weak is the most vulnerable to attack. Alexander Severus was controlled by his mother and considered feminine by his troops. He was a good ruler, but it was this appearance of weakness that led his troops to kill him. Antonius Caracalla is another example of an erroneous ruler. He was a very strong military leader who was a great fighter. Unfortunately, he became an incredibly cruel and harsh ruler over time, and he was hence killed by a

centurion.

Machiavelli also includes the country of Italy into much of his writings. He hopes to reclaim the land that has been taken away from them. He feels that Italian princes have lost their states because they have not had armed people. Machiavelli tells us that an "armed population is a stable population". The Italian princes also have not acted quickly, like a real prince should act. Julius II did act quickly, and Machiavelli attributes this to his success. In reality, the whole purpose behind Machiavelli writing The Prince was to try and help Italy free itself from foreign domination.