Essay: Niccolo Machiavelli redefined ‘virtue’

Throughout history, the definition of virtue was undoubtedly linked to Catholicism, providing a clear division between virtues and vices, were doing bad actions was not justified in any case. Nonetheless, Machiavelli using his philosophical skills, took it upon himself to redefine this complex word in his book The Prince, mix the duality of virtue and vice into one, and provide examples of princes who exemplified this virtue.
Machiavelli first mentions virtue in Ch. 6, through the exemplification of Moses, Cyrus, Romulus, and Theseus. He hints that the meaning of virtue is the ability to become a new prince or to acquire a new principality. All of his examples were founders of a new way of life in Israel, Persia, Rome, and Athens respectively. Consequently, most of these individuals did not rely on chance; rather they used their own virtue to accomplish their goals, except for Moses who used God’s help, since he was a prophet. However, he did have the virtue of being chosen by God to execute his divine plan.
In addition, he states “a prudent man should always enter upon the paths beaten by great men, and imitate those who have been most excellent, so that if his own virtue does not reach that far, it is at least in the odor of it.” (p. 22). He says this to make sure that individuals that aspire to have leadership roles aim high and even if not all of their plan is successful, they at least make some progress. This progress can then lead to making their principality a better one for the people that inhabit it.
Another of Machiavelli’s example of virtue or rather, lack of is Agathocles. He was born son of a potter, through his virtues became a prince, and ended up ordering the killing of all senators and richest people in his Republic. At the same time, he successfully held onto his principality and later on attacked Africa. Nonetheless, Machiavelli says that although Agathocles was a success story given his background and accomplishments, he would never acquire glory. In this chapter an important distinction between power and glory is made, since Machiavelli explains that if a prince uses his virtues “to kill one’s citizens, betray one’s friends, to be without faith, without mercy, without religion…” (p.35) this cannot be called virtue. (“crimes were accompanied with virtue of spirit” (34)
Hiero of Syracuse is compared to the big four (Moses, Cyrus, Romulus, and Theseus) since he uses his personal virtue, rather than fortune to accomplish his goals. For example, in Ch. 6 he was able to destroy an existing army and form a new one. He is also a clear example of how arms are more important than prophecy when it comes to becoming prince, since Girolamo Savonarola in the same chapter tried to use his spiritual power, but was not successful.
Machiavelli incorporates the old by discreetly mentioning Aristotle’s virtues and giving a new meaning to them. In Ch. 16, his main topic are liberality and parsimony, in which he says that the virtue of liberality cannot be used without damaging the prince. In addition, he expresses that if Aristotelian virtues are used too much or too little, they can heavily damage the prince’s reputation. Most importantly, Machiavelli states that being mean, rather than liberal is a virtue.
Machiavelli also presents the concept of cruelty and its relationship to virtue. He begins by saying that although all princes must aspire to have a good reputation, they should know how to limit the use of mercy when it is necessary.
Cesare Borgia is described by Machiavelli as blessed with fortune, nonetheless Borgia knew how to use his virtue to conquer fortune, since “nothing or little can be attributed to fortune” (p.35). For example, Cesare Borgia in order to become prince, killed Liverotto da Fermo in Senigalia, which is a cruel act, but in this specific case is justified, since it was done to establish the rule of a prince. In other words, cruelty becomes a virtue when its main objective is to benefit the people of a principality. To further his point, in Ch. 15 Machiavelli states “… it is necessary to a prince, if he wants to maintain himself, to learn to be able not to be good, and to use this and not use it according to necessity.” (61) In other words, cruelty becomes a virtue when the ruler is “forced by necessity” (p.70) to enter the evil aspect of situations, since he is doing it for the good of the people, “the means will always be judged honorable and will be praised by everyone.” (71) In other words, circumstances determines if something is good or bad, self- defense or used to well-being of others. Nonetheless, if the acts committed are horrible, but lead to the betterment of the people’s situations, they are justified. Ch. 3: “And truly it is a very natural and ordinary thing to desire to acquire, and always, when men do it who can, they will be praised or not blamed; but when they cannot and wish to do it anyway, here lie the error and the blame.” (p. 15) This relates to the fact that individuals who are successful will always be praised no matter the methods used for their ends.
Hannibal was another example used by Machiavelli to construct his argument. He detailed that this individual led an entire army to a fight and nobody challenged his leadership. Hannibal did this through the usage of “necessary cruelty” imposed in his subjects. Machiavelli strongly believes that his success “…could not have arisen from anything other than his inhuman cruelty which together with his infinite virtues, always made him venerable and terrible in the sight of his soldiers; and without it, his other virtues would not have sufficed to bring about this effect” (p. 67). In other words, Hannibal employed the correct tools to ensure the advancement of his goals, since he was able to adapt himself to the situation effectively. Machiavelli also says that a prince must aspire to be feared and loved, but if one must be chosen, then “it is much safer to be feared than loved” (p. 66). He says this because love can be misused by people to benefit them, but fear is a chain of horrendous consternation that individuals carry forever.
One of the key definitions for virtue is given to the readers in Ch. 18. Machiavelli begins by discussing faith, its influence in the success of princes, and then says that religion is useless when it comes to achievement. He continues by saying that princes must be able to use words and force to combat (just like foxes and lions) and must be merciful, faithful, humane, honest, and religious. Nonetheless, he also emphasizes that “…by having them and always observing them, they are harmful; and by appearing to have them, they are useful.” (p. 69). In other words, it is more important to deceit the people of possessing these qualities, rather than actually having them. Earlier in the book, Machiavelli stated, “a wise prince must think of a way by which his citizens always and in every quality of time, have need of the state, and of himself; and then they will always be faithful to him..: (p. 42) This connects to the fox/lion analogy, since if his people are fooled by him, they will always need him as a prince, thus he would have executed his virtue magnificently.  Cesare Borgia is a great example of applying this to real life, also Ch. 7 it is said that ”.. there was such ferocity and such virtue in the duke” (p.31). He was able to successfully combine the power of words and force, which turned him into a virtuous leader.
Niccolo Machiavelli took it upon himself to redefine virtue by taking the old definition of this which had a religious connotation and combining it with vices. He also tackles this task by making virtue interchangeable with excellence, saying that cruelty can sometimes be considered a virtue, and that there are successful individuals to whom this definition applies to. The consistent teaching in the book is that….