machiavelli and the shift toward modernity

8/13/2019 Machiavelli and the Shift Toward Modernity

1/5

Ryan

1

Kathryn Ryan

Dr. Atkins

Writing Assignment II

Machiavelli and the Shift Toward Modernity

I will argue in favor of Niccol Machiavellis view thatpolitical power does not

reside in virtue but, rather, in ones own capacity to maintain control and power over a

state. First, I will explain, using his own arguments in The Prince, Machiavellis belief

that one must sometimes act in ways inconsistent with moralistic virtue in order to

maintain and gain power. Thereafter, I will address a possible objection to said viewpoint

and respond to it, ultimately arguing in favor of Machiavellis assertion.

The Princeis a series of advisements that illustrate the modern shift toward

modernity and away from complete moral virtue. First, Machiavelli notes that conquering

rulers must inevitably injure those they conquer:

This in turn will be the result of another common and natural necessity, for by

the presence of his soldiers and by those other innumerable offenses that follow

upon conquest, a new ruler must inevitably distress those over whom heestablishes his rule (18).

He then advises conquerors to destroy previous ruling families, asserting that such must

be done if a ruler wishes to both conquer as well as hold his territory (19). Furthermore,

Machiavelli states that men must be either pampered or annihilated (20). In the event

that one must harm others, as a ruler wishing to maintain power, one must harm them so

severely that the harmed are unable to take revenge.

He presents The Princeas a guide on how to gain and maintain power. Machiavelli

advises the prince to act humanely only when doing so has an evident benefit, not

because doing so is ethical.


2/5

Ryan

2

It is quite possible that one may object to Machiavellis advisements, on the basis

of a more antiquated view that virtue is the core of good government. Such a view is

illustrated in Zhu XisReflections on Things at Hand:

If the ruler is humane, all will be humane. If the ruler is righteous, all will berighteous. Whether the world is peaceful or chaotic depends on whether the ruler

is humane or not. If he departs from humanity and becomes wrong, whatever

comes from his mind will be harmful to the government (Ch. 8, P. 215).

Therefore, one that supports the belief that virtuous leadership makes for virtuous

subjects and, ultimately, a secure rule, may disagree with Machiavellis advice in The

Prince.

While a reference to Zhu Xis teachings onvirtuous rule is valid, I believe that

Machiavelli is amply justified in his assertions. This is due, in large part, to human

nature. That a virtuous ruler will in turn produce virtuous subjects is inaccurate, for

human nature leads one to seek self-preservation over virtue. According to said nature,

one will act for the benefit of oneself, and therefore power cannot be maintained on the

basis of virtue alone. Machiavelli upholds the notion of self-preservation, noting, it is

truly a natural and ordinary thing to desire gain (23). He furthers thisby examining three

types of soldiers: mercenaries, auxiliaries, and citizens.

Mercenaries are paid soldiers, which poses a problem: They have no tie of

devotion, no motive for taking the field except their meager pay, and this is not enough to

make them willing to die for him (52). Soldiers that are unwilling to die for the good of

the state could easily be the source of aprinces downfall.The unwillingness of the

mercenaries to die for the state supports the modern notion of self-preservation.

Furthermore, Machiavelli mentions that mercenary captains are either good soldiers, or


3/5

Ryan

3

not. If they are not, they will fail at every task they are given. However, if they are

competent, they still cannot be trusted, for they will always seek to gain power for

themselves either by oppressing you, their master, or oppressing other against your

wishes (52). This flaw in the mercenaries is yet another affirmation of human self-

preservation, as the captain looks to gain power in order to satisfy his own selfish ends.

Auxiliaries are allied soldiers. If they lose, it is only ones own state that suffers.

But if they win, the prince and his state will become indebted to them (56). Such soldiers

will attempt to take the spoils of victory for themselves, yet again affirming the belief that

humans act in accordance with what is to their benefit.

Machiavelli concludes that a state is secure only if it possesses an army composed

of its own subjects, citizens, or dependents (58). For, in contrast to mercenaries and

auxiliaries, citizens of the state have motive for protecting their land. The idea of self-

preservation is further substantiated here, as it shows that only those that have true ties to

the land can be trusted to protect it. As protecting their homeland is to their own benefit

and the benefit of their loved ones, the citizens will courageously defend their state.

Moreover, Machiavellis view that one must sometimes stray from moralistic

virtue in order to gain and maintain power is justified in his explanations of the immoral

actions he advises. One such action is the murder of the previous ruling family upon

coming into power. While extinguishing the ruling family may be considered

inhumane, it will aid in securing the loyalty of the people, for it will destroy the

opportunity to remain loyal to the old rule. By destroying the family, there is less chance

of revolt, for there will not be an attempt to restore the previous rule (19).


4/5

Ryan

4

Similarly, the statement that men be either pampered or annihilated makes

sense in regard to seizing and holding power over a people. For, if a ruler were to leave

room for his subjects to avenge their losses, he is more likely to lose power than if he

were to follow Machiavellis advice, that necessary harm be done so severely that the

harmed cannot take revenge (20).

Machiavelli examines the best way to hold a state that was previously free,

concluding that they surest way to hold power in such a state is by complete political and

civil destruction (28). In republics there is greater vigor, greater hatred, greater desire

for revenge, and the memory of earlier freedom that will not rest (29). If the prince does

not devastate the state, there will always be the threat of rebellions in the spirit of the

former liberty, regardless of whether or not the prince is ruling well. Therefore, it is

advisable to simply destroy the state. Furthermore, when suppressing a revolt, a leader

can punish rebels as an example to others considering rebellion. Today, public executions

are considered inhumane, but Machiavelli asserts that public punishment of those that

revolt will discourage subsequent attempts at revolt and, therefore, strengthens ones

power and stabilizes ones rule (18).

Because man will seek self-preservation and act for ones own benefit as opposed

to in accordance with virtue, a ruler may only maintain power if they allow themselves to

be unconcerned with the ideal conditions of manner and behavior. Machiavelli's advice to

the prince is always grounded in the best way to acquire and increase power, rather than

in considerations of right or wrong.

Word Count: 1180


5/5

Ryan

5

Sources:

Machiavelli, Niccol, and Daniel John Donno. The Prince. New York: Bantam, 2003.Print.

Zhu, Xi. "On the Principles of Governing the State and Bringing Peace to theWorld."Reflections on Things at Hand; the Neo-Confucian Anthology.New York:Columbia UP, 1967. 215. Print.

machiavelli and the shift toward modernity

Documents