REAL-POLIK: A Prince's Means

1794 Words8 Pages
REAL-POLITIK: THE END JUSTIFIES THE MEANS “Let a prince therefore aim at conquering and maintaining the state, and the means will always be judged honourable and praised by everyone.” “For where the very safety of the country depends upon the resolution to be taken, no consideration of justice or injustice, humanity or cruelty, of glory or of shame, should be allowed to prevail. But putting all other considerations aside, the only question should be; what course will save the life and liberty of the country?” Machiavelli emphasized that being a good politician doesn’t always necessarily equate to being a good person. However, Machiavelli never praised immorality. He was not nihilistic, and he did not suppose that there was no value in…show more content…
So in a circumstance where one is politically threatened by an opponent, the use of any means to eradicate the possible threat, such as the use of poison, will be considered “good”. This situation does not imply the general justification of the use of poison, however. It is assuming that if power is the end of politics, goodness thus coincides with efficiency where efficiency is politically analogous with virtue in morality and religion while inefficiency is equated with the concept of sin. In many areas of Machiavelli’s thought, he focused on the means than the ends. Because according to him, the end - which is the acquisition, consolidation, and expansion of power - is already inherent and inarguable. Machiavelli was interested in the technicality of things such as the skills needed by rulers to govern, the ability of a ruler to find his way to political power by force or any means possible along with the ability to “stay in business” and expand his power. For Machiavelli, the virtuous ruler is one who is ambitious, ruthless, crafty, and successful - not the churchgoer nor the moralist. For him, virtue “implies the ability to understand reality and to adapt action to reality in a flexible and non-ideologist, non-dogmatic…show more content…
He believed that actions done in the name of power should be judged according to their efficiency. Machiavelli believed in no particular religion, but even though he had no sense of it, Machiavelli had a positive view of religion and acknowledged it as a tool of influence and control. With this said, Machiavelli can be compared to the Greek philosopher Critias who said that rulers should encourage the fear of non-existent gods as this encouragement will allow the ruler to control the people. Machiavelli advised that the ruler should spread and support religious beliefs that he knows to be false as it will keep the people well conducted and
Open Document