The Prince (Andrew Ehinger)

           In The Prince, Machiavelli writes that a prince can obtain glory through the keeping and protection of his principality.  In order for a prince to maintain his principality he must be the aggressor.  Thus meaning a prince must invade another state before that rival state attempts to invade his own. Machiavelli states that upon the conquering of another principality a prince can occupy the new state, tax the state, or destroy it.   Most of the time in order to assure the ultimate safety for his own state a prince will make the decision to completely destroy the principality he has seized.

            In the time period Machiavelli is addressing, society could not imagine a world without war, and therefore I have no problem with a prince causing the destruction of another state.  In this case, the end justifies the means.  If a neighboring nation is gaining power and is beginning to threaten the security of one’s own principality then is it not morally justifiable to destroy that principality?  I do not want a great prince who ruled graciously for years, but was too complacent and caused my state to be conquered.  I need a prince who is going to go out and squash any threat to my safety and defend my home and livelihood.  If the cost of protection of the state is the death of others, then the prince is morally forced to devastate those people and their home.  One could argue that the people of the rival state need not be decimated, but in this time period death to ones enemies seemed to be the only foolproof way to ensure the safety of your people.

            As said before Machiavelli believes that the most important matter of the prince is to maintain the state.  But without his people there would be no state.  Thus there is the unwritten obligation of the prince to protect his people above all else.  In order for a prince to uphold his authority he needs to stay true to this obligation or else his subjects may not remain loyal.  Without the loyalty of one’s subjects a prince is essentially ruling another a foreign state.  Would he then have to abolish his people as he did to his conquered states, or should he stay true to the obligation to his people?

The Deity of Fortune

 I found Machiavelli’s discussions on Fortune a curious subject that we may have grazed over too quickly in our talk of good intentions.  The topic proved dear to our author, who discusses in detail in Chapter XXV (p.113) the havoc wreaked by Fortune.  He first depicts Fortune as his “‘His Majesty King Chance’” as in the opinion of Frederick the Great and immediately follows up with a scene of floods and chaos throughout the land as Fortune’s embodiment.  These immediately suggest that Machiavelli connotes violence and misfortune as the tools of Fortune, setting any positive repercussions of this deity away from the discussion.  He later makes note of this lack of positive functions for Fortune in two statements, first: “I will leave his [Pope Julius the Second] other actions alone, as they were all alike, and they all succeeded…” (p.116).  Here he admits that he has chosen only to discuss Fortune’s negative actions, and thus an implication that Fortune has either no positive exploits, or that those are few and far between and not entirely recognizable.  Secondly, he concludes with “She is, therefore, always, womanlike, a lover of young men, because they are less cautious, more violent, and with more audacity command her” (p.116); thus explaining that Fortune preys only on those who can be easily tormented and avoids interaction of the positive sort.  Fortune has only contempt as an intention.

            I was likewise interested in his accreditation to Fortune, an amount no less than “one-half of our actions” (p.113) are under the jurisdiction of chance; a sum less than that theorized by Frederick the Great, who attributed “three-quarters of the business of this miserable universe” (p.113).  While neither man believes Fortune a constituent of positive actions, it can be observed that Machiavelli gives more credit to man in managing his own deeds.  Perhaps, in a deviously subtle manner, our author is claiming that his text is indeed worth reading, since man has most nearly half of the responsibility for his actions.  If only a fourth of our actions were under our control, how significant would reading a guidebook like The Prince be?

            Wherein Machiavelli cites Frederick the Great, it may also be found that the pair disagree on the subject of Fortune’s gender.  This may perhaps be in concordance with their proposed jurisdictions:  Frederick claiming Fortune as the Prince of all, delegator of the majority of life’s aims and thus suitably personified as a king; and Machiavelli depicting a half and then some of governance.  Machiavelli’s claim gives light to a series of interpretations:  perhaps a cultural development in the appreciation of women, a claim that men are ruled by their counterparts, and/or a statement about the author’s personal experience with the opposite sex.  What do you all think about Machiavelli's depiction?

Ends Justify the Means

In The Prince by Machiavelli the prince was advised by Machiavelli to basically do anything and everything to keep power of his state. This includes appearing to be a “virtuous” leader and deceiving his country about many things including his choice of religion. Machiavelli justifies this deception by saying it will all be worth it in the end when the state succeeds and the prince keeps his position of power.  This brings up the question do the ends justify the means. In class we said we would get to this question next week, but I thought since we didn’t really talk about it yet this could get us started on a discussion about what we’ll be talking about next week.

A Machiavellian example of the ends justify the means would be for the prince to be justified in completely destroying another country as long as it meant the success of the prince and his country. This idea of using immoral tactics to maintain order and safety of a country is still around today. Politicians have always made many decisions that we as a country didn’t feel were morally sound.  Earlier in week, we discussed the issue of waterboarding and other torture tactics that were being used to attempt to keep the nation safe. To many Americans these ways were not moral and they shouldn’t be used as a way of keeping the nation safe and trying to retrieve information from terrorist http://www.nj.com/times-opinion/index.ssf/2012/05/opinion_attempts_to_justify_ci.html . But others argue that this and other immoral acts are a necessity to America’s health and safety.   But when it comes to the safety of our country would we rather be safe than sorry? To some who are pro-torture the means (using immoral tactics) could justify the ends (keeping our country safe).

                This principle doesn’t always have to apply to government and other people in power. It could also relate to everyday people in their everyday lives. For instance, in high school someone could cheat on test to make good grades so they could get a scholarship and get into college.  For the student, getting the scholarship would justify the immoral actions of cheating on tests and assignments.

For the Machiavellian prince as long as you do whatever it takes to maintain the power of your state you are doing the right/ “moral” thing. But is this just a way for immoral people to justify their immoral actions? So do the ends ALWAYS justify the means?

Ashley Lindemann -The Prince

Ashley Lindemann

One of the main points that Machiavelli makes in The Prince is that it is better for a prince to be feared than loved. According to Machiavelli, a prince that is loved does not have a secure leadership. Even though a loved prince may have a strong relationship with his people if his subjects benefit from betraying him they will do so unless they have consequences to fear. Love is an internal feeling and these feelings can easily come and go. Fear, on the other hand, is a more reliable leadership tactic because no one wants to be harmed. Machiavelli believes that being feared is required in order for a prince to be successful because this is the only way that his people will remain loyal to him.

Personally, I think that respect is more important than both love and fear.  When an authority figure who I love tells me what to do I obey out of respect rather than fear. For example, I highly respect my parents. When they direct me or tell me what to do I listen to them because I value their opinions and respect the decisions they make. If I do disobey them I always feel guilty because I know that I let them down. When my parents punish me, my feelings of respect for them are the reason I do not rebel further. This is why I think that respect is a good mix between fear and love. You may not love your leader, but you respect them enough to obey their decisions, and you may not fear your leader, but you respect and consequently you do not want to rebel against their rule.

I believe the reason that the United States has been successful in keeping a generally peaceful, united country is because the citizens respect it. The United States has remained one of the top countries in the world without using fearful types of government. I think it is interesting that even though many people disagree with the president’s opinions and decisions citizens of the United States choose not to leave the country because they know that America has one of the most respected government systems. US citizens must follow the laws set by the government, but they are allowed to state their own opinions about whether they agree or disagree with them. In many other countries this would result in punishment or even harm.  

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.

Machiavelli and Prowess

In class this week, we started talking about virtuous leaders vs. leaders who are more aggressive in protecting the state.  This topic is definitely a topic that stands out as we scrutinize Machiavelli's opinions about how a prince should act.  I think that there are definitely more issues that stem from our debate.  More specifically, I am interested in addressing Machiavelli's ideas about prowess as it relates to the acquisition of principalities. As I read this particular section in the book, I definitely generated many thoughts about whether or not I can agree or disagree with his bold statements which were expressed on pages 19 through 22 in my book.

One of the things that Machiavelli elaborates about is how excellent leaders follow in the same path as the leaders who stood before them.  "Men nearly always follow the tracks made by others and proceed in their affairs by imitation, even though they cannot entirely keep to the tracks made by others or emulate the prowess of their models." (19)  Honestly, I cannot entirely agree with what he says here. It leads me to think about great leaders of today and the people that we idolize.  Even though we strive to imitate these people, ultimately each individual has a separate role and an individual path.  Anyone is capable of showing prowess. However, people can do so in different ways. Thus, I don't think that it is necessary to follow in the same direction as previous leaders to meet positive ends and accomplish significant goals. When a leader shows his distinct personality and marches in his own direction, in my opinion, he is more memorable.

Additionally, Machiavelli elaborates about how men who possess prowess have a difficult time acquiring principalities, but are somehow able to sustain them with fewer challenges. His thoughts on about this were insightful and led me to think more intensely about them.  For example, the opposition that the prince faces when he alters the structure of the state is an interesting issue to ponder about.  I support his ideas about how an individual must be an innovator in order to get support from the people who originally opposed him when he came to power. Outstanding leaders cannot always succumb to the thoughts and beliefs of the majority in times of adversity.  They have to forge their own way and make aggressive decisions.  When the results of these decisions are positive and lead to success,  people get a real chance to see how powerful he actually is. In real life, people can see examples of this when they witness the struggles that other individuals face and how they manage to overcome them.  Personally, when I see friends and family members endure tough times and reach a positive end, I tend to think about how my opinions about them is elevated. I also tend to evaluate how they handled it, even if I would have chosen to handle it in the same way.  Thus, Machiavelli's words about prowess and the ability to handle the negative aspects of ruling an empire seem reasonable to me.

I tended to focus on my own personal thoughts and things that stood out in my mind. However, I think that there are definitely deeper ideas could be considered in regards to my views and Machiavelli's views of prowess. For example, how much or to what extent does a person need to exert it? Is it something that is innate within leaders or is it something that they appear to have? When does it have adverse effects or become a negative aspect? These are things that commenters can may choose to address.

Alexandria Cornwall

Will Murphy- Defining Morality

The topic of “morality” is prominent in Machiavelli’s “The Prince”. The reading sparks controversies about which type of prince is more desirable: a virtuous and moral prince, or one who intends to protect the principality, despite possibly inflicting pain on his people and violating certain morals. However, I believe that before one can even bring these questions into consideration, one must  define “morality”. Because morality is a rather broad, subjective term, it is perhaps better to define morality by answering questions regarding its essence and bases.

After concluding reading, questions concerning morality arise; such as, “is morality real?” or “would morality exist without human life?” I believe that morality is an invention of the human superego that exists in order to explain the actions or behaviors of all living things. Morality is not a natural characteristic of someone or something; we, as analytical creatures, feel a need to find meaning in, and reason for, any and every action of both humans and animals. From this intensive rumination is “morality” born. Humans create “morality”, and attribute it to all life as though all are capable of having it. A lion that kills and antelope is not acting immorally; neither is a cockroach when it runs into a human while looking for food in a dorm, nor a flock of geese when it leaves a wounded goose behind during migration. These animals have neither the intention nor the intellectual capability to establish or act upon moral values. To these animals, behavior is a function of their natural drive to stay alive. Humans, because we are generally not in danger of losing our lives, have the time to sit, contemplate, and fabricate reasons for others’ behaviors.

Even in humans, a degree of morality is not attributed to anyone before they exhibit some behavior that suggests they are virtuous. “Morality” as a characteristic comes after behavior. No one can look at a picture of someone and claim whether they are moral or amoral, because it is merely a conception.

Finally, how are we to define morality as one single notion? Terrorists, murderers, and rapists all can be moral; their beliefs, virtues, and values may be extremely different from those of the majority of the population, but their morals are determined by their beliefs and feelings, just as ours are.

As we can see, even after using sets of questions to better clarify the term “morality”, it is still difficult to compose a single, concrete definition. One can be “moral” or “amoral”. One’s morals can be “good” or “bad”. It is impossible to define “morality” in a way that eliminates human subjectivity, because it is begotten of the human intellect.

Will Murphy

August 30, 2012

Will Gietema - The Prince

Will Gietema

            Throughout the Prince, Machiavelli writes about the relationship between reality of morality and the separation of morality and governance. The concept of morality is a creation of the human intellect that projects the feelings of right and wrong onto everything. Without humans or the interactions that produce cultural norms, morality would not exist, nor would there be a reason for it. I believe that morality is the product of the human Ego that satisfies man’s strongest urge for pleasure and a feeling of belonging. Morality acts as a kind of social lubricant that keeps a general sense of harmony and comfort. Thus, the cultural norms that create the guidelines of a culture’s moral compass are ones the most powerful a Prince could utilize. Individuals who step outside the moral boundaries of a culture will command much attention whether that be negative or positive, and the Prince can utilize that attention. The Prince must separate his governance from morality because then it is possible to see the entire political landscape without the limiting aspect of morality; which might otherwise eliminate crucial options that might mean the gain and maintenance of the state. This separation of morality and governance provides many strategic advantages to the Prince that an otherwise virtuous leader would not have.

            The Prince should view the political landscape and the preservation of the state as a game of chess, assuming the role not of the King but rather the player, controlling all the pieces. Like a chess master, the Prince should be able to predict his enemies potential plays, multiple moves in the future and can even feed the enemy his own pieces sacrificially, to coax his opponent into defeat. The difference though is that in Chess to sacrifice a pawn if to simply discard an inanimate object but, for the Prince it could be land, or his own people. This is why the separation of morality and governance is so crucial and so advantageous. The Prince can be free to make decisions that will be crucial to victory but might be morally wrong. The separation of morality and governance is also essential when governing your own state or a recently acquired state. Also the manipulation and use of religion becomes a viable option if the Prince ignores the morality of it, and simply views religion as just another tool. Although the rule of a Machiavellian Prince would be extremely effective, I personally would not want to live under the rule of the Prince, nor would I want to be ruled by a solely virtuous leader. I think that the most effective type of ruler for the state and its people is one that is able to make calculated decisions to find the mean between the Prince and a virtuous leader.  

Welcome to class!

Welcome to the blog-home for Dr. J's Fall 2012 Philosophy-track Search for Values course! This site will serve as a forum for students to discuss the material we cover in class, as well as a place to raise questions we may not have addressed in class or to make connections between our material and current real-world events. Each week, students will be divided into two groups, with half of the class designated as "Authors" and the other half designated as "Commenters." In any given week, "Authors" will post a short essay (minimum 400 words) related to the course material before Friday at 5pm. "Commenters" will respond to at least two of that week's Author-posts before the beginning of Tuesday's seminar. Students are encouraged to post or comment beyond the requirements stated here, as frequent and quality blog activity will be rewarded in the final grade.

First, if you don't know ANYTHING about blogs or blogging, there are (fortunately) lots of tutorials out there to help!  If you have a specific question, you can usually find the answer to it at the Blogger Help Center.  For a quick YouTube introduction to blogging, I suggest this video and this one.  There's also a "Complete List of Blogger Tutorials" available.  That's the amazing thing about the internet, of course... you can learn to do almost anything with a few clicks!

Second, it's important to know that blog-writing differs from the writing you might do for "traditional" papers in some ways, but not in others. Here are some things to think about as you compose your posts and comments:

FOR AUTHORS:

• Do not wait until the last minute to write your post! Students should think of the blog as a community exercise. In this community, Authors are responsible for generating that week's discussion and Commenters are responsible for continuing and elaborating upon it. In order for the Commenters to be able to provide the best commentary they can, it is necessary that Authors do not wait until the last minute to post entries in any given week. Like traditional papers, it is almost always obvious when a student has elected to write his or her blog-posts at the last minute, as they end up being either overly simple, poorly conceived or poorly edited. Your contribution to the blog discussion is important, so take care to show the respect to your classmates that you would expect them to show you.
• Be concise, but also precise. The greatest challenge of blog-writing is to communicate complex ideas in a minimal amount of words. It is important that you keep your posts short, in keeping with the blog format, but also that you do not sacrifice the clarity or completeness of your ideas for the sake of brevity.
• Be focused. If you find that your blog-entry is too long, it is likely because you have chosen too large a topic for one post. (Consider splitting up long entries into two or more posts.) It should be eminently clear, on the first reading, what your blog post is explaining/asking/arguing. Use the Post Title to clearly state the subject of your entry.
• Choose a topic that will prompt discussion. The measure of a good blog post is how much commentary it can generate. To that end, do not use your blog posts for simple exegesis or to revisit questions already settled in class. Good discussion-generators often include bold claims about, or original interpretations of, our classroom texts. Connecting the course material to current events or controversies is also a good way to generate discussion. Pay special attention to in-class conversations, as many of the issues that generate discussion in class will also do so on the blog.
• Proofread. Proofread. PROOFREAD. As a rule, blog-writing is (slightly) less formal than the writing you might do for a paper you hand in to your professor. For example, you may write in the first person, and a more "conversational" style is usually acceptable. However, ANY writing with glaring punctuation, spelling or grammatical mistakes not only will be difficult to read and understand, but also will greatly diminish the credibility of its Author. It is NOT ADVISABLE to "copy and paste" the text of your post into blog's "new post" box, as you will inevitably end up with a format that is difficult to read. Be sure to familiarize yourself with the formatting buttons above, and always preview your post before publishing it.
• Make use of the "extras" provided by new technology. When you write a traditional paper for class, you don't have many of the opportunities that blog-writing affords. Take advantage of the technologies available here to insert images, embed video or employ hyperlinks to other relevant materials.
• Respond to your commenters. Authors should stay abreast of all the comementary their posts generate. If you are asked for clarification by a commenter, or if one of your claims is challenged, it is the Author's responsibility to respond.

FOR COMMENTERS:

• Read carefully BEFORE you comment. The biggest and most frequent error made by commenters is also the most easily avoidable, namely, misreading or misunderstanding the original post. Don't make that error!
• Simple agreement or disagreement is not sufficient. Sometimes it will be the case that you fully agree or disagree with an Author's post. However, a comment that simply states "I agree" or "I disagree" will not count for credit. You MUST provide detailed reasons for your agreement or disagreement in your comment.
• Evidence works both ways. Often, the source of disagreement between an Author and a Commenter will involve a textual interpretation. If an Author claims in his or her post that "Advocates of the death penalty are obviously operating within a Kantian moral framework," the Author should have also provided a page citation from Kant supporting that claim. If you (as a Commenter) disagree, it is your responsibility to cite a passage from Kant that provides evidence for your disagreement. For disagreements that are not text-based-- for example, disagreements about statistical claims, historical claims, claims about current events, or any other evidentiary matters-- hyperlinks are your friend.
• Dr J's Rule #7. Be sure to read Rule #7 under "Dr. J's Rules" on your syllabus. There are no exceptions to this rule. Even on the blog.

Although this blog is viewable by anyone on the Web, participants have been restricted to member of the PHIL 150 class only. This means that only members of your class can post or comment on this blog. However, anyone can read it, so students are reminded to take special care to support the claims that they make, to edit their posts and comments judiciously, and to generally represent themselves in conversation as they would in public. If you are new to blogging, you can visit the sites for other Rhodes course blogs listed in the column to your right.

I look forward to seeing your conversation develop over the course of this semester!
--Dr. J