Machiavelli's Prince

[Hidden]

I made a thread on this book a few years back when I was young and stupid and really didn't have much to say on the subject. Now I'm a little older and still stupid, but I've collected a few more thoughts over the last three years, and so will try again.

It strikes me that many revile Machiavelli for the morality perceived in his seminal work, The Prince, famously condensed into "the ends justify the means."

But Machiavelli does not put forward a moral argument. He is explaining power--the processes and aim of power, which have absolutely nothing to do with morality. His work is not immoral--it is amoral in the truest sense of the word.

I say, if you are going to trust anyone on the nature of power, trust someone such as Machiavelli. Because any attempt to attach morality, divinity, or any other system of value onto power is misleading, and such a misunderstanding of power can too easily lead to its abuse. Machiavelli treats power as a system of value unto itself, with its own processes --effectively, anything that perpetuates power-- and its own aim --the continuous expansion of power--.

I think he is right, or at least honest, in doing this. So I wonder if our strong reaction to Machiavelli comes not from any true moral outrage, but from an acute sense of discomfort at seeing such an integral part of our lives uncovered so clearly and without sympathy.

Discuss, if this interests you.

[krexia]

I totally agree with you. I admire Machiavelli for telling it as it is; for discussing outright the real truth behind how power and political manipulations works, without trying to sugar-coat it. The world could use more of his kind of discourse. Pretending that we can make everyone happy sounds good in sound bytes but I respect honesty and pragmatism more than idealism.

[Square Ninja]

Originally Posted by Hidden

It strikes me that many revile Machiavelli for the morality perceived in his seminal work, The Prince, famously condensed into "the ends justify the means."

But Machiavelli does not put forward a moral argument. He is explaining power--the processes and aim of power, which have absolutely nothing to do with morality. His work is not immoral--it is amoral in the truest sense of the word.

Wasn't The Prince supposed to be a kind of satire to the typical ruling methods used by the Italian city-states and papacy at the time?

[Hidden]

I do think Machiavelli's treatment of power is absolutely necessary, but I do not know his intentions in writing the work, past what he puts in the dedication to Lorenzo Di Piero De' Medici, a prince of one of the Italian principalities (as well as an earlier dedication to a sponsor who died before the work was finished). I have never heard the theory that it was intended as a satire; it would strike me as a surprisingly straightforward satire if so, as he is neither gentle nor subtle with any of the contemporary examples he draws.

There are two other works that I have found as formative to my thinking on power as "The Prince". One is George Orwell's "1984", which I find to portray one of the most compelling and naked images of power in fiction. The last part of the book in particular is almost entirely didactic, but thrillingly so.

The other takes things in a different direction, and it is an essay by Simone Weil titled "The Iliad: or the Poem of Force". Weil uses the Iliad, and her own experience of world war, to show what power does to those people subjected to its force. "To define force--it is that x that turns anybody who is subjected to it into a thing." Her portrayal of the human relation to force is remarkably moving.

I would be curious if there have been similarly formative works for others.

[darkisaac]

It strikes me that many revile Machiavelli for the morality perceived in his seminal work, The Prince, famously condensed into "the ends justify the means."

But Machiavelli does not put forward a moral argument. He is explaining power--the processes and aim of power, which have absolutely nothing to do with morality. His work is not immoral--it is amoral in the truest sense of the word.

I say, if you are going to trust anyone on the nature of power, trust someone such as Machiavelli. Because any attempt to attach morality, divinity, or any other system of value onto power is misleading, and such a misunderstanding of power can too easily lead to its abuse. Machiavelli treats power as a system of value unto itself, with its own processes --effectively, anything that perpetuates power-- and its own aim --the continuous expansion of power--

I think he is right, or at least honest, in doing this. So I wonder if our strong reaction to Machiavelli comes not from any true moral outrage, but from an acute sense of discomfort at seeing such an integral part of our lives uncovered so clearly and without sympathy.

Discuss, if this interests you.

I'm sorry but I cannot agree with your statement that Machiavelli's work is "amoral".

First one must be clear about the "power" that Machiavelli refers tol that is to say, of course, political power, no?

Well then we must assert that Machiavelli's "power" is nonexistent without society, correct? for what power can a man have, if he has no subjects to rule over?

Now, based on these logical assumptions, it is inevitable that Machiavelli's work be, at it's very core, a moral argument. After all, morality is an inevitable part of society, that much is known. Without morality, society does not, cannot exist, because society implies mutual cooperation, and where there is society, a moral code will spring into existence to keep the very society from destroying itself. Thus, if morality is an integral part of society, and Machiavelli's aqcuisition of power depends on society, then surely you can see that morality must play a major role in Machiavelli's work (In fact to say otherwise is downright foolish).

To say that Machiavelli takes morality out of the equation is an insult to his intelligence- the man was smart enough to know what I stated above.

If I remember correctly, Machiavelli comments that at times one must do things that are distasteful, and immoral, things that although wrong, are necessary to perpetuate power. Machiavelli knows that morality is an obstacle in performing the actions necessary for seizing power, and so he knowingly advises that one must break moral rules in order to attain total power.

So how can you say that Machiavelli doesn't pose a moral argument? The very act of advising one to forsake morality to achieve one's goal IS a moral argument.

[Enchanted Rose]

In response to the OP, I largely agree.

I superficially read ‘The Prince’ out of interest when I was considering some of the more general issues in Oliver Cromwell’s ascent to, and subsequent maintenance of, power in post-Caroline England.

The concept of ‘machiavellism’ has come to denote slyness and cunning, but what most surprised me was the measured, systematic way Machiavelli takes us through each aspect of governance. He writes detaching himself from the suggestions he makes; the text never employs a conventional rhetoric of persuasion, its function is chiefly informative – I believe “useful” is the word Machiavelli ascribes to his own writing.

In this way, Machiavelli does not take up a moral position; we may go as far to this is amoral.

Yet simultaneously, like darkissac is right - the text is almost dangerous. It is politically charged, and has the potential to engender profound repercussions in society.

However, Machiavelli invites the reader to make use of the knowledge he has proffered: though he has not actively encouraged, he has enabled them to act in an underhand way that would reap the best rewards for themselves - at the expense of others.

The moment someone reads it – with a view to gain power- it becomes morally quantifiable.

As ridiculous as this sounds, we could perhaps compare the text to a gun. Would we say that the gun itself is immoral – after all, it is just a facilitator – or would we be more accurate to place the charge of immorality on the possessor of the gun?

In its most basic form, the text merely represents an ideology – one that is both cynical and candid. Why then should we place the ‘blame’ on Machiavelli himself? He seems to be simply reproducing his knowledge; in its dormant state, the text is amoral, but in practice it can become immoral.

[Hidden]

I keep forgetting that I have threads in Literature.

First to address darkisaac's cogent arguments.

When I say that Machiavelli's argument is amoral, I do not mean to imply that it cannot be the subject of serious moral concern--by virtue of its being produced and, more importantly, practiced in a moral society (as darkisaac and Enchanted Rose both note), such moral concern is absolutely necessary.

However, I differ from darkisaac where he says that, because the argument is put forth from within a morally-conscious society, it is thereby a moral argument. First, one could reverse this summarized 'structure of society' quite neatly by identifying power as the integral part of society and reasoning that, since morality depends upon the existence of said society, it is necessary that all moral arguments at their core be arguments of power (actually, this would be a fascinating argument, but I still don't think the causation is there). Secondly, as an expansion of this argument, one would eventually reach the point that any argument put forth from within society would thereby be a moral argument, giving every story a moral and making literature a dreary business indeed.

What I wanted to point out with the term "amoral" is that Machiavelli traces no connection between morality and the processes/ends of power itself; that he acknowledges power to often step across moral lines is hardly surprising given what I believe to be a central tenet to his argument--that power disregards morality altogether. (He does at times stress the need for power to appear moral, however, to the extent that is necessary to keep the fabric of society together--this is related to the argument darkisaac gives above.)

If you want a work that addresses power and at the same time attempts the moral implications that arise from it (which is not to say a morality inherent to power), I would suggest Simone Weil's essay, "The Iliad, or the Poem of Force". I am aware you have issues with this work as well, however, which I will attempt to address in the appropriate thread.


I think Enchanted Rose provides an important perspective contrary to darkisaac's, though I would also stress a point here that I think may have been subverted.

Enchanted Rose 'defends' Machiavelli as a neutral facilitator rather than active agent of power, saying that he gives people a method to act towards power but certainly does not force or even encourage them to do so (I actually might disagree with that--he throws in his own provocative and rarely cautionary opinions from time to time). The analogy given is to a gun, which can empower a person to kill others but rarely does so of its own volition.

What I want to stress is that Machiavelli's text is not just a loaded gun, ready to go off in the hands of the first person to dare touch it. Because Machiavelli addresses power as power, with (almost) no strings moral or otherwise attached, it is also an incredibly empowering tool to the study of power, which I think is an essential subject for us to understand.

[darkisaac]

Originally Posted by Hidden

However, I differ from darkisaac where he says that, because the argument is put forth from within a morally-conscious society, it is thereby a moral argument. First, one could reverse this summarized 'structure of society' quite neatly by identifying power as the integral part of society and reasoning that, since morality depends upon the existence of said society, it is necessary that all moral arguments at their core be arguments of power (actually, this would be a fascinating argument, but I still don't think the causation is there). Secondly, as an expansion of this argument, one would eventually reach the point that any argument put forth from within society would thereby be a moral argument, giving every story a moral and making literature a dreary business indeed.

What I wanted to point out with the term "amoral" is that Machiavelli traces no connection between morality and the processes/ends of power itself; that he acknowledges power to often step across moral lines is hardly surprising given what I believe to be a central tenet to his argument--that power disregards morality altogether. (He does at times stress the need for power to appear moral, however, to the extent that is necessary to keep the fabric of society together--this is related to the argument darkisaac gives above.)

For the first highlighted part: You sort of missed my point; in my view, it is erroneous to say there is a "morally-conscious society", because that implies there can be a society in which morality does not apply, and that is impossible, because my very argument is that morality is an integral part of society. So your counterargument has already started with a false axiom.

Now, let's ignore that small error, I still don't see the logic in the statement highlighted in red, and again, you mistook what I said. I didn't say morality is dependant on society, it is society that is dependent on morality: after all a single man can have a moral code independent of society, but a society cannot exist without a moral code.

But back to the actual main point of your statement: It is a false assumption. Just because both morality and power are integral parts of society, that doesn't make all moral arguments arguments of power.

Lets take apples as an example. Here's the Merriam Webster definition for apple, so as to be exact in our observations.

1. the fleshy usually rounded red, yellow, or green edible pome fruit of a usually cultivated tree (genus Malus) of the rose family; also : an apple tree

So by this definition we can agree that that all apples are either red, yellow or green, and that all apples are fruits, right? After all, these qualities are integral to the very identity of apples.

So then, by your logic, all things that are red, yellow, or green, must inherently be fruits. So yes, you were right in stating that there is no causation in your first counterargument, which leads me to the question: Why even bother writing that first argument if you yourself see that it has no validity?

Anyways, on to the second highlighted part, taking note of the red part. It is wrong. Machievelli's work, and by extension power, does not disregard morality:

Machiavelli observes morality as an obstacle for maximizing the acquisition of power, and therefore, one seeking power cannot disregard morality, they must break it, they must break the moral codes. So if it is the nature of power to seek to expand itself (As you stated in your first post), then it follows logic that it must address morality as an obstacle before it can attain it's goal of expansion, and logically, because it must adress morality, it cannot possibly disregard it.

Basically, morality and moral codes are not something that can be ignored, they can only be broken- because the very act of "disregarding" it, as you say, is not in fact disregarding it; it is acknowledging and adressing it, and then choosing to go against it.

[darkisaac]

Now on to ERs argument.

...the text never employs a conventional rhetoric of persuasion, its function is chiefly informative...In this way, Machiavelli does not take up a moral position; we may go as far to this is amoral.

...The moment someone reads it – with a view to gain power- it becomes morally quantifiable...

...in its dormant state, the text is amoral, but in practice it can become immoral.

I agree with your statement that Machiavelli remains neutral in the sense that he never condones or condemns any actions, he just simply presents information.

However, your conclusion is erroneous: You are assuming that just because Machiavelli doesn't encourage or discourage any of his statements, his work is not a moral argument.

You are assuming that his work only becomes moral when a person reads it, and intends to act on it.

But I will disprove your logic with a simple example:

If I say "Killing is wrong" I am making a moral argument, that much is logical; So let that be our axiom.

Now, in any part of that statement, did I encourage or discourage killing? Did I ever say "You should or shouldn't kill"? No I did not. Therefore, I have proved that it is possible to make a moral argument without ever condoning or condemning any action whatsoever.

So how can you tell me that Machiavelli's work only becomes moral once read and applied, when it is moral from its very origin?

[Hidden]

Originally Posted by darkisaac

For the first highlighted part: You sort of missed my point; in my view, it is erroneous to say there is a "morally-conscious society", because that implies there can be a society in which morality does not apply, and that is impossible, because my very argument is that morality is an integral part of society. So your counterargument has already started with a false axiom.

Now, let's ignore that small error, I still don't see the logic in the statement highlighted in red, and again, you mistook what I said. I didn't say morality is dependant on society, it is society that is dependent on morality: after all a single man can have a moral code independent of society, but a society cannot exist without a moral code.

But back to the actual main point of your statement: It is a false assumption. Just because both morality and power are integral parts of society, that doesn't make all moral arguments arguments of power.

I understood your argument. My disagreement starts with your 'structure of society'--that power is built upon society is built upon morality, therefore making all arguments of power at their core moral arguments. My faux-counter was to point out that one could as easily say that morality is built upon society is built upon structures of power, therefore making all moral arguments at their core arguments of power (I actually hold this to be the more promising argument, though I agree with you that it is ultimately flawed).

But I hold my second disagreement as the more important--that this would ultimately require all literature to have a moral, a condition that I do not care to conceive of.

Originally Posted by darkisaac

Anyways, on to the second highlighted part, taking note of the red part. It is wrong. Machievelli's work, and by extension power, does not disregard morality:

Machiavelli observes morality as an obstacle for maximizing the acquisition of power, and therefore, one seeking power cannot disregard morality, they must break it, they must break the moral codes. So if it is the nature of power to seek to expand itself (As you stated in your first post), then it follows logic that it must address morality as an obstacle before it can attain it's goal of expansion, and logically, because it must adress morality, it cannot possibly disregard it.

Basically, morality and moral codes are not something that can be ignored, they can only be broken- because the very act of "disregarding" it, as you say, is not in fact disregarding it; it is acknowledging and adressing it, and then choosing to go against it.

I have not made my argument sufficiently clear. When I say that Machiavelli traces no connection between morality and the processes/ends of power itself, this is not the same as to say that a human being seeking power does not face moral choices at some point. Yes, he acknowledges this.

But I also think Machiavelli makes clear that morality and power are entirely separate systems of value unto themselves, and it is these systems of value that have nothing to do with each other. The reason I gave the processes and ends of power in the opening post was in part to show that morality does not enter into their consideration. The means of power are anything that perpetuate power, the end of power is its own continuous expansion; morality is neither advanced nor opposed in these statements, it is disregarded. Power itself, as Machiavelli presents it to us, is an amoral system.

Originally Posted by darkisaac

I agree with your [Enchanted Rose's] statement that Machiavelli remains neutral in the sense that he never condones or condemns any actions, he just simply presents information.

I don't know--he really likes Cesare Borgia.

Originally Posted by darkisaac

But I will disprove your logic with a simple example:

If I say "Killing is wrong" I am making a moral argument, that much is logical; So let that be our axiom.

Now, in any part of that statement, did I encourage or discourage killing? Did I ever say "You should or shouldn't kill"? No I did not. Therefore, I have proved that it is possible to make a moral argument without ever condoning or condemning any action whatsoever.

The value-statement, "Killing is wrong," condemns the act morally, which is the end of the moral argument. If you wish to make the claim that morally condemning an action is not the same as saying "you shouldn't do this", that's fine, but at that point you've left the grounds of moral argument.

[darkisaac]

But I hold my second disagreement as the more important--that this would ultimately require all literature to have a moral, a condition that I do not care to conceive of.

I have not made my argument sufficiently clear. When I say that Machiavelli traces no connection between morality and the processes/ends of power itself, this is not the same as to say that a human being seeking power does not face moral choices at some point. Yes, he acknowledges this.

But I also think Machiavelli makes clear that morality and power are entirely separate systems of value unto themselves, and it is these systems of value that have nothing to do with each other. The reason I gave the processes and ends of power in the opening post was in part to show that morality does not enter into their consideration. The means of power are anything that perpetuate power, the end of power is its own continuous expansion; morality is neither advanced nor opposed in these statements, it is disregarded. Power itself, as Machiavelli presents it to us, is an amoral system.

I find the highlighted statement to be redundant, after all, all you have said is that morality and power are different concepts, which certainly they are, as seen by the fact that they have different words and meanings to represent them. It is no different from me saying that an apple and a pear are different, after all if they weren't different there'd be no point to having two terms to describe the same thing, we would use one word to emcompass both of them.

I never argued that morality and power are separate concepts, my issue was with the second part of your argument:

...and it is these systems of value that have nothing to do with each other.

You assume that simply because morality and power are separate concepts they are not interconnected, which is ludicrous. It is just simply wrong.

You must realize that if Machiavelli was simply separating the two concepts of morality and power, it would go against the very core of his work. After all, Machiavelli was a pragmatist, and as such, his work deals with the practical applications of these concepts.

Perhaps speaking strictly abstractly one could argue that power and morality, or at least the ideas of power and morality, are independent of each other. But Machiavelli, being a pragmatist, could care less for such speculations, he only sees what is practical, and in our world, in reality, power and morality are intertwined, so that Machiavelli must address morality in order to speak about power in the practical sense.

I don't know--he really likes Cesare Borgia.

I don't see the relevance in this statement, after all, I qualified my previous statement by saying that Machiavelli is neutral "in the sense that he never condones or condemns any actions, he just simply presents information", I never encompassed his preference for certain individuals in my statement, you are taking my words and applying then to a realm where I did not aim them.

The value-statement, "Killing is wrong," condemns the act morally, which is the end of the moral argument. If you wish to make the claim that morally condemning an action is not the same as saying "you shouldn't do this", that's fine, but at that point you've left the grounds of moral argument.

I knew somebody would confuse this issue. I am not condemning the action, I am simply labeling it, identifying it as falling within a certain spectrum.

In this case, it would be a leap to say that I am either encouraging or discouraging the act of killing. I have remained neutral in my analysis. I can easily refute your point that I am condemning the act by saying "Killing is wrong, but I encourage it"

Also I believe there is no such thing as "condemning" an act morally, an act is either inherently moral or immoral regardless of one's opinion. I say that killing is wrong not out of opinion, but out of fact, therefore I cannot "condemn" it as immoral, because it already is immoral. The statement that we can "condemn" things morally implies that we can control what is and isn't immoral.

But that is another argument for another day. lol

[Hidden]

Originally Posted by darkisaac

You assume that simply because morality and power are separate concepts they are not interconnected, which is ludicrous. It is just simply wrong.

I have laid out what I believe to be the processes and ends of power. You are welcome to propose where morality enters into that system.

Originally Posted by darkisaac

You must realize that if Machiavelli was simply separating the two concepts of morality and power, it would go against the very core of his work. After all, Machiavelli was a pragmatist, and as such, his work deals with the practical applications of these concepts.

Perhaps speaking strictly abstractly one could argue that power and morality, or at least the ideas of power and morality, are independent of each other. But Machiavelli, being a pragmatist, could care less for such speculations, he only sees what is practical, and in our world, in reality, power and morality are intertwined, so that Machiavelli must address morality in order to speak about power in the practical sense.

If all Machiavelli had to offer was practicality, the relevance of The Prince would be almost entirely confined to its existence as an historical document; too much of his "practical advice" is too far out of date to be anything else. What I think keeps Machiavelli relevant is that, beyond or even through these outdated schemes, he presents an intellectual argument for how power operates on a fundamental level. That is the argument that I am interested in, that I lay out very basically in the opening post, and that has nothing to do with morality.

The conflicts that individuals perceive between morality and power do not come from an inherent antipathy between them; rather, they come from the fact that two entirely separate systems, when put into the processes of life, will occasionally cross, just as they will occasionally run parallel.

Originally Posted by darkisaac

I don't see the relevance in this statement, after all, I qualified my previous statement by saying that Machiavelli is neutral "in the sense that he never condones or condemns any actions, he just simply presents information", I never encompassed his preference for certain individuals in my statement, you are taking my words and applying then to a realm where I did not aim them.

I was merely referring to the fact that Machiavelli openly admires and supports the ruthless and underhanded political tactics of Cesare Borgia; in other cases, in giving his pragmatic advice, he directly condones taking immoral actions based upon the circumstances.

Originally Posted by darkisaac

I knew somebody would confuse this issue. I am not condemning the action, I am simply labeling it, identifying it as falling within a certain spectrum.

In this case, it would be a leap to say that I am either encouraging or discouraging the act of killing. I have remained neutral in my analysis. I can easily refute your point that I am condemning the act by saying "Killing is wrong, but I encourage it"

What meaning do you give to the classification "wrong" in a moral argument?

Originally Posted by darkisaac

Also I believe there is no such thing as "condemning" an act morally, an act is either inherently moral or immoral regardless of one's opinion. I say that killing is wrong not out of opinion, but out of fact, therefore I cannot "condemn" it as immoral, because it already is immoral.

If this is the case, then you do not in fact present us with a moral argument.

[krexia]

Originally Posted by darkisaac

So how can you say that Machiavelli doesn't pose a moral argument? The very act of advising one to forsake morality to achieve one's goal IS a moral argument.

Machiavelli describes the most efficient methods of consolidating power, given that one's goal is power above all else. The proviso is all-important. I don't recall him ever saying that one should aspire to power above all else, or even commenting on the morality of having an autocratic system in the first place. I wouldn't say The Prince makes a moral argument any more than The Art of War does - Sun Tzu may explain the best tactics for destroying one's enemies, but that doesn't mean he's making any statements about the morality of conquering by force.

In short, Machiavelli raises a very interesting moral argument by describing the fundamental truths behind consolidation of power, and forcing the reader to assess the relative importance of power and conventional morality. But as you concede, he never condones or condemns; he leaves the reader to make their own choice. In that sense I agree with Hidden that the work itself is amoral.

Originally Posted by darkisaac

I say that killing is wrong not out of opinion, but out of fact, therefore I cannot "condemn" it as immoral, because it already is immoral. The statement that we can "condemn" things morally implies that we can control what is and isn't immoral.

I disagree with this fundamentally; I believe morality is relative, not absolute. But that's a whole separate argument we can take to Intel, if you're interested.

[Hidden]

Originally Posted by Niccolo Machiavelli

[F]or a man who wishes to act entirely up to his professions of virtue soon meets with what destroys him among so much that is evil.

Hence it is necessary for a prince wishing to hold his own to know how to do wrong, and to make use of it or not according to necessity.

taken from chapter XV, Concerning Things for which Men, and Especially Princes, are Blamed or Praised

This starts off Machiavelli's five or so chapters in which he addresses where power intersects with conceptions of morality. To either darkisaac or krexia (or any others interested in the question): how are we to understand these intersections?

I found an accessible online text here: Machiavelli: The Prince: Contents

[darkisaac]

Originally Posted by krexia

Machiavelli describes the most efficient methods of consolidating power, given that one's goal is power above all else. The proviso is all-important. I don't recall him ever saying that one should aspire to power above all else, or even commenting on the morality of having an autocratic system in the first place. I wouldn't say The Prince makes a moral argument any more than The Art of War does - Sun Tzu may explain the best tactics for destroying one's enemies, but that doesn't mean he's making any statements about the morality of conquering by force.

In short, Machiavelli raises a very interesting moral argument by describing the fundamental truths behind consolidation of power, and forcing the reader to assess the relative importance of power and conventional morality. But as you concede, he never condones or condemns; he leaves the reader to make their own choice. In that sense I agree with Hidden that the work itself is amoral.

You fail to realize that there is a fundamental difference between The Art of War and The Prince :

Sun Tzu never addresses the moral implications of his writing, in fact, he is a lot more factual and systematic tha Machiavelli. So one can say that Sun Tzu's work is amoral, because he truly does not put up a moral argument (at least from what I've read, though I admit I have not read all of The Art of War, only certain chapters) .

However, Machiavelli does indeed adress morality; he explicitly mentions in his work that one must forsake morality and virtue in order to reign over a principality properly. If that isn't a moral argument then frankly, I don't know what is.

And just so we can put this issue to rest, I will cite textual proof of my point. This is Machiavelli's, The Prince, Chapter XV, where he unequivocally states that a good Prince must relinquish the conventional morality we all live by.

Originally Posted by Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince, Chapter XV, Page 42

IT REMAINS now to see what ought to be the rules of conduct for a prince towards subject and friends. And as I know that many have written on this point, I expect I shall be considered presumptuous in mentioning it again, especially as in discussing it I shall depart from the methods of other people. But, it being my intention to write a thing which shall be useful to him who apprehends it, it appears to me more appropriate to follow up the real truth of a matter than the imagination of it; for many have pictured republics and principalities which in fact have never been known or seen, because how one lives is so far distant from how one ought to live, that he who neglects what is done for what ought to be done, sooner effects his ruin than his preservation; for a man who wishes to act entirely up to his professions of virtue soon meets with what destroys him among so much that is evil.

Hence it is necessary for a prince wishing to hold his own to know how to do wrong, and to make use of it or not according to necessity. Therefore, putting on one side imaginary things concerning a prince, and discussing those which are real, I say that all men when they are spoken of, and chiefly princes for being more highly placed, are remarkable for some of those qualities which bring them either blame or praise; and thus it is that one is reputed liberal, another miserly, using a Tuscan term (because an avaricious person in our language is still he who desires to possess by robbery, whilst we call one miserly who deprives himself too much of the use of his own); one is reputed generous, one rapacious; one cruel, one compassionate; one faithless, another faithful; one effeminate and cowardly, another bold and brave; one affable, another haughty; one lascivious, another chaste; one sincere, another cunning; one hard, another easy; one grave, another frivolous; one religious, another unbelieving, and the like. And I know that every one will confess that it would be most praiseworthy in a prince to exhibit all the above qualities that are considered good; but because they can neither be entirely possessed nor observed, for human conditions do not permit it, it is necessary for him to be sufficiently prudent that he may know how to avoid the reproach of those vices which would lose him his state; and also to keep himself, if it be possible, from those which would not lose him it; but this not being possible, he may with less hesitation abandon himself to them. And again, he need not make himself uneasy at incurring a reproach for those vices without which the state can only be saved with difficulty, for if everything is considered carefully, it will be found that something which looks like virtue, if followed, would be his ruin; whilst something else, which looks like vice, yet followed brings him security and prosperity.

I believe this chapter pretty much makes and solidifies my argument.

I went through the trouble of highlighting the most important parts, which are sufficient to prove my point, though you're certainly welcome to read the whole thing, as it will ensure that you comprehend why Machiavelli in fact does pose a moral argument, and why The Prince is most certainly not amoral.

If you do not feel like reading that whole thing, I will paraphrase:

Machiavelli asserts that the idea of being a good, moral person and following virtues is infantile and unrealistic, because we live in a world where men are immoral and evil. He therefore states that a Prince's pursuit of virtue and morality can only lead to ruin; and that one must commit acts of evil, "vice", and wrongdoing when necessary in order to be an effective ruler. He literally states that one has to give up the idea of being a moral person in order to be a good Prince.

Now, as I said before, if that isn't a moral argument, then I honestly don't know what is, because as I stated in my previous posts, the very act of advising one to forsake or break morality is a moral argument.

Thank you Hidden for providing us with a link to a copy of The Prince, as the reason I hadn't just cited this previously to prove my point was sheer laziness at the thought of typing this out, but with copy and paste, it took no effort to cite this monster of a paragraph.

I disagree with this fundamentally; I believe morality is relative, not absolute. But that's a whole separate argument we can take to Intel, if you're interested.

Sure, if you'd like to discuss it I'm fine with it.