There is obvious controversy over whether Niccolo Machiavelli was a credible and reasonable political theorist or a teacher of evil. When observing the writings of Machiavelli in The Prince, it becomes immediately clear that his views on politics and government are fairly straightforward but fail to take into consideration issues of ethics and morality. This may make Machiavelli seem evil to some, but for others, this fact makes him one of the most practical philosophers to have ever lived. Machiavelli was in fact not a teacher of evil, but a man who was unafraid to examine things for what they actually were. Like anything else, Machiavelli figured up an ideal form of government that would ensure the success of the ruler regardless of moral restraints that would hinder the average man from ruling with unwavering certainty when it comes to the success of his province. Ironically, though, Machiavelli’s teachings are far from idealistic in that he teaches that the overall successful outcome of his country is the only thing that matters. In The Prince by Machiavelli, as questions of morality, evil, and justice are invoked, it is important to understand that evil cannot be demarcated by any particular actions or thoughts, Machiavelli is indeed not evil in his teachings, and Machiavellian teaching is still prevalent in modern times.
Machiavelli is said to be a teacher of evil in the best-known interpretation of The Prince. For Machiavelli to be a teacher of evil, one would also assume that Machiavelli himself was evil. For a judgment like this to be made, the term “evil” must be defined. Unfortunately, “evil” has never had, and will never have, a clear, unambiguous definition given that every individual has his or her own perception of what it means for something to be evil. If it is assumed that evil is everything that is impious, Plato can give a more accurate description of why this theory is inapplicable and ultimately invalid.
It is fair to say that Chapter XV of The Prince is the epitome of what it means to be a Machiavellian and, more specifically, what it means to live practically instead of ideally, which is the basis of critics’ accusations of the Machiavelli’s vice. This chapter deals primarily with the ruling prince and his behavior towards the people he is governing. “Many men have imagined republics and principalities that never existed at all. Yet the way men live is so far removed from the way they ought to live that anyone who abandons what is for what should be pursues his downfall rather than his preservation; for a man who strives after goodness in all his acts is sure to come to ruin, since there are so many men who are not good. Hence it is necessary that a prince who is interested in his survival learn to be other than good, making use of this capacity or refraining from it according to need.” Machiavelli saw beyond the idealized, fantasy republics because he saw people for how they actually are: fickle. For Machiavelli, it was foolish for a prince to concern himself with the unpredictability of virtue in the society he governed because it would lead to a complacent and unstructured civilization that would ultimately lead to the demise of the prince and of the society he ruled. Just in this text, it is seen that Machiavelli wasn’t evil indubitably. He was just smart enough and open enough to recognize that the most successful route of any ruler may not be through kindness and virtuousness but in avoiding morality completely if it means having an ineffective reign as prince. Some may see a prince’s determination to succeed, above all else, no matter what the price, as something beseeched by evil. However, he wouldn’t disregard kindness and compassion if it didn’t threaten to thwart his efforts at becoming the most effective leader as possible.
Machiavelli did indeed mention cruel actions in The Prince that could be seen as evil. If, for a moment, these actions mentioned by Machiavelli become absolutely evil by every definition, it is important to recognize the inevitability of this type of evil in politics. Politics doesn’t absolutely need to contain evil in the same way that human’s don’t absolutely need air conditioning. Although evil is not always critical in politics it does, in most instances, produce the most effective outcomes. Machiavelli’s prince can, at times, be a kind and beneficent leader. But this approach doesn’t seem to work in many cases because of the selfish, self-serving attitudes of the people being governed. “To be reputed generous among men, one must indulge in every form of ostentation, with the result that any prince who does so will have to spend all of his resources and, to keep up his reputation, will have to burden his people unduly by resorting to extortionate taxation and every other means of raising funds. This will begin to make him odious to his subjects and, as he declines into poverty, will lose him the respect of everyone.” In this text, Machiavelli makes the prince seem as if he is only concerned for the welfare of his reign but he is actually thinking about the overall success of the province. Machiavelli’s prince doesn’t wish harm or evil on the people of his land. If anything, he loves his rule and his country so much that would do whatever it takes to ensure the general progress of his country. Machiavelli, in The Prince, doesn’t feel the need to embellish his argument with elaborate language to make it seem as if he is a kind person. In fact, no one knows if the writings of Machiavelli are even beliefs that he held himself. As counsel to the current ruling prince of Florence, Italy, Machiavelli wrote The Prince as an instruction manual to successful rule and felt that the prince would understand completely the text and would recognize every ounce of what Machiavelli had to say, regardless of if the prince was strong enough to put the ideas to action. In politics today, generosity and benevolence from rulers may be the cause of the United States’ current debt situation. As a result, such as in Machiavelli’s theory, many people have turned to the President to blame for the crisis. Regardless of the cause of this major debt crisis, the President is still the one in charge, and heeding Machiavelli’s words by turning a blind eye to what is virtuous in the eyes of the people (generosity and kindness) may be the most effective way to handle the problem. The only reason why the President would need to avoid the wishes of the people, though, is if he had a plan to restore what has been lost at the cost of cutting other programs that keep the people happy. This would work properly unless the President only had his own interests in mind. In which case, Machiavelli would have something very different to say, and, undeniably, would have never intended for The Prince to instruct such a ruler in my opinion.
Another issue in current politics that may require evil for future progress is the healthcare and welfare acts that are currently in place in America. If affordable healthcare, which is, for all intents and purposes, a generous act of the man in charge, comes at the price of hindering the progress of American life by raising taxes on the working middle class, then it may not be the most effective route to take. Similarly, the welfare system in America has become corrupt with people who know how to manipulate arrangements that are put in place to keep people with low income and disability healthy and decently happy. If keeping the current welfare act in place hinders the progress of the future in American life, the President, if he were a sovereign ruler, should do anything in his power to aide in fixing the problem. For both of these issues in modern politics, evil acts may be needed to further the success of American life. If needed, affordable healthcare and financial support for the less fortunate may need to be cut out completely if the system isn’t working as originally intended. If Machiavelli’s predictions are indeed true, these generous acts from the people in charge have the potential to eventually bankrupt the country even more, if that is even possible, and then poverty will no longer be an issue for a minority, but for the entire country. All of the grief that would come with poverty would be funneled towards the leaders of the country and they would either have to fix the problem by becoming less generous, or let the country fall into the hands of another country or out of existence completely. Although this is unrealistic because of the differences between the government of Machiavelli’s time and the government of modern America, it is still an interesting comparison to make to demonstrate that “evil” in modern politics may still be pertinent.
Machiavelli’s view of political reality is one that I support wholeheartedly as a concept of successful rule in a Monarchy or Dictatorship. If I were a prince and I had absolute rule, Machiavelli’s teachings would be the basis of my political philosophy because I personally see no flaws in its effectiveness in creating a stable, well-structured, successful society where overall progress of the civilization is the end result of a ruler’s reign. Ultimately, Machiavelli’s prince is able to look past political ideals and is able to recognize politics and its relationship to the governed people as what it truly is. Machiavelli’s prince understands that people are not going to live up to their expectations as virtuous people and that political idealism can never be achieved. Therefore, policies that Machiavelli’s prince follow look past anything that has the possibility to obstruct realistic and potentially optimal results from his rule and reign.
Machiavellian teachings, in my opinion, are not evil by any means. As one of the most sensible political theorists and philosophers to have ever lived, Niccolo Machiavelli serves as a reminder that, whether painful or not, realistic and practical principles are the most effective and will always aide in successful leadership. Machiavelli’s prince operates as a model of realistic pursuits for the overall prosperity of a nation. Although unorthodox at times, Machiavelli’s tactics and ideals make him, not only the most realistic and practical philosopher to have ever lived but also, the most patriotic.
...(download the rest of the essay above)