In class, we concluded that realism leaves out many things, the most prominent being human nature, human rights, and humanitarian intervention. Realism generally places an individual or a group of individuals in charge of the political and military actions of a nation-state. Doesn’t this then place politics into the hands of an individual? Personal morals are still present. Machiavelli says that there are two kinds of morals; morals that approve any action that leads to success, and morals that are used when dealing with other humans in a personal manner. I would have to argue that the former is an excuse to be selfish and immoral on the road to power, instead of a way of being moral.
Politics are personal. Committing an immoral act from a political office is no less immoral than a civilian committing an immoral act in society. For example, the Holocaust, a government sanctioned event, is no less immoral than the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 led by an extremist group. Both are disgustingly immoral and neither can or should be justified. Even if Machiavelli’s idea of morals is applicable, I would argue that these were both incidients applicable to the set of personal morals. Individuals lost their lives, and families were destroyed. It can’t get any more personal than that.
Morals are foundational within every individual, therefore they do not fluctuate with circumstance. Morals are not situational, and this is where Machiavelli is wrong. Gunning down a village just to win the fear of a nation, and thus power over them, is not moral. Killing off entire royal families in order to take power without distraction is not moral. There are no exceptions or loopholes in morals. Period.
This is a really interesting and unique post. I think I understand the basic thesis of this post but correct me if my comment is completely off.
ReplyDeleteYour post seems to isolate the basic struggle between politics framed under a consequentialist (or utilitarian) or deontological lens. Consequentialism, in its most basic description, states that the "ends justify the means". Policies that are enacted that may cost the lives or jobs of some people, will benefit the overall population. An mediocre example would be whether or not it's moral to kill one person in order to save 1000 people from dying.
Deontology questions the "rightness" of actions. It basically claims that some actions are ethically or morally wrong regardless of the outcome, directly contrasting a consequentialist framework.
I'm curious as to if you believe a ruler should be consequentialist, deontological, both, or something else?
Do you think Machiavelli advocates a certain framework within The Prince?
I think rulers, and every person for that matter, should be a deontologist. I never asserted that killing 1000 people is better than killing one, but that killing is wrong all together. I was addressing Machiavelli's two faceted moral explanation, in which he states that actions done in order to achieve power are always moral. He gave examples of killing entire villages or towns when getting in power just to grab the attention of the people, or murdering entire royal families in order to assume unquestioned power. Both situations, no matter the number of lives lost, are both immoral. I think your example is irrelevant in this context.
ReplyDeleteI definitely think Machiavelli is advocating for consequentialism, as long ass the end is achieving power. If the end was to marry your true love and the means was to kill his wife first, then Machiavelli would deem it immoral because its on a personal level. Machiavelli asserts that the means are only justified if the end if more power.