Practical Ideals
Machiavelli – initial post
Machiavelli believes that life is not always in black in white, meaning that things cannot always be categorized as good or bad, or at least he does not emphasize virtue or morality in his writing. He is not saying that cruelty should be the dictate of rulers. “One ought to be both loved and feared; but, since it is difficult to accomplish both at the same time, I maintain it is much safer to be feared than loved, if you have to do without one of the two” (52). Fear is an emotion that can be controlled unlike love. “Men do not understand how to be either entirely wicked or completely good” (132). “It is impossible to find a balance between weakness and strength; impossible to find a middle way successfully” (101). If men were all good then idealized societies could exist. “One cannot have all the good qualities, nor always act in a praiseworthy fashion, for we do not live in an ideal world” (48). Machiavelli wants to paint a picture of how life truly is and talk about “practical realities” (48). In a way, I believe that in the sample of Machiavellian writings that we have studied, Machiavelli is in fact constructing an ideal of what men SHOULD do through the mistakes and success of past and present examples. It is practical advice on a level for the minority of people who are policymakers and rulers but where in the text is an example of a republic or a principality that has existed through the ages on account of the advice Machiavelli gives? Perhaps what Machiavelli may be suggesting is that if one follows this advice then they will succeed, but bits and pieces of success stories from leaders and governments scattered across the world is just that…fragments. Hindsight tends to be very clear but in the here and now decisions are not as astute and no amount of calculation and planning can set the course of the future.
Many authors [i.e. Aquinas and Plato] have constructed imaginary republics and principalities that have never existed in practice an never could; for the gap between how people actually behave and how they ought to behave is great that anyone who ignores everyday reality in order to live up to an ideal will soon discover he has been taught how to destroy himself, not how to preserve himself (48).
I too believe that the course of everyday reality should not be ignored; people cannot mimic the ideal in any sense of practicality. It is true that human nature is fallible; people are cruel, deceitful and greedy. But the ideal often sets the bar to be achieved in life. A world where people have no reason to strive to be good is not a world that I would like to live in. Ideals perhaps create a pseudo morality, a reason to restrain human behavior. In many ways this is what Machiavelli is creating, probably much to his dissatisfaction. If there is such a thing, Machiavelli seems to be emphasizing a practical ideal.
I do not think that he wants people to be cruel all the time or the world should live under an evil destructive dictator or that the unbridled masses with insatiable appetites should do whatever is necessary to quench those appetites, but he does realize that certain ends can only be achieved through unmoral means. If one were to study transitional democratic nations, that is, newly democratic countries that are in the process of transition from another form of government, such as an authoritarian regime, all the data would point to a decrease in human rights and an actual rise in government authoritarian control. How could a democracy be justified in these increased restrictions and atrocities on the population? Well, to look to Machiavelli for the answer, the heightened control harsh methods are necessary to create a constraint on the population in order to create a regime of law and order. It is in the nature of man to be reluctant to change, even under a selfish destructive regime. Eventually the country in transition will begin to regain order and respect of the populace through the harsh methods and the country will abide be the artificial restraint of the laws. The trend with transitional democracies is that they become less repressive and democracy begins to take hold.
Machiavelli believes that life is not always in black in white, meaning that things cannot always be categorized as good or bad, or at least he does not emphasize virtue or morality in his writing. He is not saying that cruelty should be the dictate of rulers. “One ought to be both loved and feared; but, since it is difficult to accomplish both at the same time, I maintain it is much safer to be feared than loved, if you have to do without one of the two” (52). Fear is an emotion that can be controlled unlike love. “Men do not understand how to be either entirely wicked or completely good” (132). “It is impossible to find a balance between weakness and strength; impossible to find a middle way successfully” (101). If men were all good then idealized societies could exist. “One cannot have all the good qualities, nor always act in a praiseworthy fashion, for we do not live in an ideal world” (48). Machiavelli wants to paint a picture of how life truly is and talk about “practical realities” (48). In a way, I believe that in the sample of Machiavellian writings that we have studied, Machiavelli is in fact constructing an ideal of what men SHOULD do through the mistakes and success of past and present examples. It is practical advice on a level for the minority of people who are policymakers and rulers but where in the text is an example of a republic or a principality that has existed through the ages on account of the advice Machiavelli gives? Perhaps what Machiavelli may be suggesting is that if one follows this advice then they will succeed, but bits and pieces of success stories from leaders and governments scattered across the world is just that…fragments. Hindsight tends to be very clear but in the here and now decisions are not as astute and no amount of calculation and planning can set the course of the future.
Many authors [i.e. Aquinas and Plato] have constructed imaginary republics and principalities that have never existed in practice an never could; for the gap between how people actually behave and how they ought to behave is great that anyone who ignores everyday reality in order to live up to an ideal will soon discover he has been taught how to destroy himself, not how to preserve himself (48).
I too believe that the course of everyday reality should not be ignored; people cannot mimic the ideal in any sense of practicality. It is true that human nature is fallible; people are cruel, deceitful and greedy. But the ideal often sets the bar to be achieved in life. A world where people have no reason to strive to be good is not a world that I would like to live in. Ideals perhaps create a pseudo morality, a reason to restrain human behavior. In many ways this is what Machiavelli is creating, probably much to his dissatisfaction. If there is such a thing, Machiavelli seems to be emphasizing a practical ideal.
I do not think that he wants people to be cruel all the time or the world should live under an evil destructive dictator or that the unbridled masses with insatiable appetites should do whatever is necessary to quench those appetites, but he does realize that certain ends can only be achieved through unmoral means. If one were to study transitional democratic nations, that is, newly democratic countries that are in the process of transition from another form of government, such as an authoritarian regime, all the data would point to a decrease in human rights and an actual rise in government authoritarian control. How could a democracy be justified in these increased restrictions and atrocities on the population? Well, to look to Machiavelli for the answer, the heightened control harsh methods are necessary to create a constraint on the population in order to create a regime of law and order. It is in the nature of man to be reluctant to change, even under a selfish destructive regime. Eventually the country in transition will begin to regain order and respect of the populace through the harsh methods and the country will abide be the artificial restraint of the laws. The trend with transitional democracies is that they become less repressive and democracy begins to take hold.
posted by Holly at 2:08 PM
<< Home