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.