Was Machiavelli's political thought amoral realpolitik?

Résumé du document

The Prince is a realist: he is interested in what does happen and not in what ought to be. If he wants to stay in power (to ensure the common good) the Prince cannot be honest because it would lead him to his ruin. He is exempt from the normal rules of morality. As he is surrounded by wicked people, he must be selfish (Machiavelli, 1998). He is a calculating person because he prefers to be feared than to be loved (both are incompatible so it becomes necessary to choose). Indeed, he explains that if a Prince is too merciful, this can lead to disorder, and crimes may be generated because of this chaos (Machiavelli, 1998, pp. 55-57). He has the quality of ‘virtu' which gives him the energy to govern and to preserve the unity of the political order. In the consequentialist perspective developed by Machiavelli, the Prince cannot keep his word (Machiavelli, 1998, pp. 58-60).

In fact, he has to behave like two animals which symbolize two complementary qualities: the fox (for guile) and the lion (for strength). Machiavelli argues that the ruler must ‘be a fox to recognize the traps, and a lion in order to frighten the wolves', although strength is normally the way to contend animals (Machiavelli, 1998, p. 58). Machiavelli thought the Prince should be realistic because people judge him on the final results of political actions which must be effective (Viroli, 2008, p. 26).

Extraits

[...] * * * In conclusion, I would argue that we can consider Machiavelli's political thought as moral realpolitik, if we give a wider definition to the term of moral. Machiavelli lived through difficult times for Italy and as a realist, he cared about the means required to build a republican State. The Prince cannot always behave honourably if he wants to maintain his power and to achieve the greatest goal of the community which is general good and security. His thought was judged as immoral or amoral because it did not match the values generally seen as moral, namely the Christian values. [...]

[...] He is exempt from the normal rules of morality. As he is surrounded by wicked people, he must be selfish (Machiavelli, 1998). He is a calculating person because he prefers to be feared than to be loved (both are incompatible so it becomes necessary to choose). Indeed, he explains that if a Prince is too merciful, this can lead to disorder, and crimes may be generated because of this chaos (Machiavelli pp. 55-57). He has the quality of ‘virtu' which gives him the energy to govern and to preserve the unity of the political order. [...]

[...] Machiavelli was also a founder of classical realism in international relations. In his opinion, the State is rational, egoistic and wants to conquer territory. To understand such analysis, we have to take into consideration the context in which Machiavelli wrote The Prince. At this time, the Italian cities-states were at constant war with each other, and also against other major European powers (France, Spain According to him, every state had to rely on a strong military power, to fix both internal and external disorder. [...]

[...] We have seen that we can consider his thought as realpolitik. The focus of this second part will be to demonstrate that Machiavelli's political thought is generally judged as conventionally amoral or immoral. One may stress on the word ‘conventional' to understand that his thought was not necessarily amoral or immoral in an absolute perspective, but only regarding the background of European societies and the principles valued by people in these societies. First of all, many extreme interpretations found this thought was immoral (against morality). [...]

[...] In this perspective (of conventional morality), there is only one way to regard this thought as moral: to interpret it as a tale or a satire. For instance, Spinoza thought that The Prince was the best way to resist tyrants (Berlin p. 27). Rousseau argued that Machiavelli wrote this book for the people and not for the Prince, to teach them the truth about the way princes behave (Nederman, 2009). Hence, in this interpretation, Machiavelli's may be judged as moral because he did not mean what he wrote and provided the people with the means to resist tyrants. [...]