The Prince, Morality, and Appearances

After reading The Prince, I was moved to question not only the significance of public image but its relation to both public and private morality. Machiavelli repeatedly stresses that no matter what, a Prince must avoid being hated (Machiavelli 58); however "in order to maintain his state, he is forced to  act in defiance of the good" (57). It seems paradoxical, doesn't it? The Prince is supposed to remain in the good graces of his people by putting on a mask of morality, but in order to act in their best interest, he must do things that wouldn't exactly be moral by humanity's standards.
In light of this reasoning, it would seem that one man's vice is another man's virtue. Under the paradigms put in place by human morality, much of what the Prince and many politicians today and in history have done in order to run the state smoothly would be considered appalling by the public.  For instance, in the case of Harry Truman and the atomic bomb used during WWII--the bomb would kill millions of innocent civilians, and Japan was working on a peace agreement to surrender if the US spared their emperor (http://www.doug-long.com/hiroshim2.htm). But the U.S. went through with the bombing in order to "save the lives of thousands and thousands of young Americans" (http://www.doug-long.com/truman.htm). This was quite Machiavellian of Truman, committing what would ordinarily be considered an atrocity in the name of public safety--and yet, there was no extreme backlash from the majority of Americans: he was reelected in 1948.
What does this imply about human morality? If it is, as discussed in class, merely a construct of the human psyche, perhaps these moral laws that govern us are often overruled by our more primal impulses--rage, desire, the survival instinct--and we merely justify them with concepts like "righteous revenge" and "the greater good." Machiavelli insists that "the gulf between how one should live and how one does live is so wide that a man who neglects what is actually done for what should be done moves towards self-destruction rather than self-preservation" (50). A good leader must appear to be a man of integrity (58) in order to keep the support of his nation, but the survival of the state dictates he act under another code. But maybe the public is putting on just as much a front of morality as our politicians--maybe we know, secretly, that as much as we say we want a virtuous leader, as much as we crusade against corruption and search for the "right thing," that what really need is someone to make sure we don't end up at the bottom of the food chain.