Machiavelli Is One of the Most Visionary Thinkers - Essay Example

?Machiavelli is one of the most visionary thinkers in the history of Western thought. Like any visionary, he made his mark on history by running counter to prevailing thoughts and attitudes, by being willing to say what he thought even at the risk of unpopularity. For hundreds of years, guidebooks had been written for rulers about how to govern; these usually focused on the lives and practices of laudable rulers who lived moral lives and tried to teach other rulers how to follow their example. Machiavelli chooses to break strikingly with this long standing and honored tradition, and write a different kind of guidebook for rulers. His guidebook did not tell rulers how to lead in an enlightened, moral way, but rather how to hold on to power, regardless of morality. This mentality was enshrined in his famous “the ends justify the means” attitude. Machiavelli’s choice to preclude moral discussions from his political analysis was bold, and had many benefits and drawbacks. Removing moral and ethical judgments from political analysis allowed Machiavelli to give a clearer guide to how to retain leadership, and differentiate traits that are praiseworthy in an individual from traits that are praiseworthy in a prince, but simultaneously perverted discussions of what the role of the ruler should be, focusing on how a ruler can help himself retain power rather than how to do the best thing for his subjects, necessarily. The first major benefit of Machiavelli’s choice to remove moral and ethical considerations from his political analysis is that it allows him to ask questions previous thinkers had not really been able to; instead of asking “what makes a good ruler?” he was able to ask “what makes a successful ruler?” or, put another way “what allows a ruler to achieve and to hold onto power?” This kind of thinking pervades Machiavelli’s texts – he writes that he intends his book to be a “practical text” (chapter XV), which, rather than following a line of moral absolutes, attempts to write something of “practical use to the inquirer” based on what actually happened to rulers who acted in one way or another (chapter XV). He insists that every action will lead to either “self-preservation” or “self-destruction” and that the primary goal of any ruler most be for all of his actions to be consistent with the former rather than the latter. Machiavelli, by eschewing moral questions, is able to focus on a completely different aspect of rulership than previous thinkers were able to. Focusing solely on how to achieve and hold on to power sounds a bit – well, Machiavellian for lack of a better term, selfish and disinterested with other’s wellbeing. Machiavelli’s focus on the maintenance of power is not, however, solely beneficial to the prince that takes his advice, but can also be of great benefit to the entire population. A ruler who behaves in a “self-destructive” way will surely be weak to attacks, and eventually others will try to attack his position and gain his princedom for their own. Such weak rulers who constantly have to spend time and energy defending their position always have less resources to put towards the public good, and the population suffers. Furthermore, weak rulers often invite anarchy, which can be much more damaging to a society than a slightly tyrannical leader. So, depending on the situation, Machiavelli’s admittedly cold advice could benefit not only the prince but also his population. Being able to ask and answer very different types of questions than previous thinkers had been able to was only one of the many benefit of Machiavelli’s amoral political analysis. Another major one was the ability to differentiate between qualities that are admirable in an individual versus qualities that are admirable or desirable in a leader. One of the prime examples Machiavelli uses to demonstrate the differences is the quality of generosity versus miserliness. Though generosity is obviously an excellent and admirable quality to have as an individual, Machiavelli points out that it is incredibly problematic in a leader. He points out that it is an admirable quality for an individual to have by calling it a “virtue” (chapter XVI) and by noting that it is very good to have a “reputation for generosity” (chapter XVI). But Machiavelli points out that a leader is in a very different position from the average person; a leader generates most of his income from taxing his subjects and thus his generosity is at the cost of the people (chapter XVI). Furthermore, generosity could prevent a leader from being able to defend both himself and his people by not having enough money to fight in a war if it becomes necessary. Machiavelli, by removing moral absolutism from his arguments, is able to recognize that traits that are generally recognized as positive in the normal population can be negative in a leader; a leader, for instance, has should not burden his people with incredibly high taxes merely to honor a moral code which advocates generosity. While avoiding moral and ethical issues in his analysis of governance has many benefits, it also has some drawbacks. The biggest among these is probably the fact that it removes the question of what a ruler ‘should’ do in a moral and ethical way from discussions of governance. As mentioned above, removing moral and ethical limitations allows Machiavelli to focus on the question “how does one develop and maintain power?” but it also inhibits the question “how should this power be exercised?” By focusing solely on actions that are self-serving to the ruler, Machiavelli misses what must be considered one of the supreme components of leadership – acting in a way that is positive for the people being led. While some of his discussions may lead to positive outcomes for the general population (such as, as mentioned before, creating strong leaders who avoid anarchy) these gains for the population are purely circumstantial. Machiavelli advises the ruler on how to make himself the most secure, and if sometimes this is good for the population, excellent, but if it is bad for the population he does not particularly care. This system, especially if extrapolated to the modern world where rulers have unheard of ability to oppress the populations they lead, can have horrible and devastating consequences. Machiavelli does warn a prince to avoid being hated, because it breeds rebellion, but it is also clear from his writing that the stronger a leader is the more he can afford to be hated. Machiavelli’s system could lead to a world where only a handful of people are happy and actualized, and the rest of the population toils in despair. Machiavelli was clearly a visionary thinker. He took an old format of book and revolutionized its content and format, removing moral quibbling and focusing on pragmatic advise to a ruler on how to remain a ruler. This was a good thing in many ways, allowing Machiavelli to think ‘outside the box’ and ask innovative questions, as well as realize that there might perhaps be a difference between acceptable morals for individuals and acceptable morals for leaders, but also had a drawback in that it could lead to horribly oppressed and dejected populations when questions of morals are removed. Read More