Reflection on Machiavelli, Morality, and Virtue
In The Prince, Machiavelli departs from the traditional meaning of virtue to one that encompass a broader collection of traits. For Machiavelli, The Prince is only a diversion from traditional morality in that it sets new standards up for being virtuous. He examines virtue in the scope of political rule which at the time was commonly centered around the connection between moral goodness and legitimate authority – rulers earned praise by acting in accordance to standards of ethical goodness. Machiavelli took politics away from the narrow fatalism of the Roman Catholic Church to articulate a more secular way of looking at the world. At first sight, this portrayal of virtue may seem shocking and inconsistent. However, upon expanding on Machiavelli’s use of the word virtue, we can begin to understand his divergence from traditional moral understandings. Machiavelli explains that there is no moral basis to judge between legitimate and illegitimate uses of power. He goes further to say that the virtue of the prince is the range of personal qualities that one will find necessary to “maintain his state” and “achieve great things.” Machiavellian virtue differs from moral virtue in that what was good for the state may sometimes be contradictory to what is morally good in the Christian sense; a prince must employ both good and evil on his behalf while balancing the interests of a variety of institutions, even when it means acting in an immoral or evil fashion because ultimately, the most effective rule is one where the ends justify the means.
Machiavelli’s examination of virtue becomes clearer once he portrays virtue as a talent or skill for political matter. In this sense, Machiavelli’s prince must possess the ability to act and the boldness to take whatever he wants. In chapter VI, Machiavelli praises leaders like Cyrus, Romulus, and Theseus, explaining how these men rose to power without depending on fortune. He writes,
“But let us consider Cyrus and the others who have acquired or founded kingdoms: you will find them all admirable… As one examines their actions and lives, one does that not see that they had anything else from fortune than the opportunity, which gave them the matter enabling them to introduce any form they pleased. Without that opportunity their virtue of spirit would have been eliminated, and without that virtue the opportunity would have come in vain.” (Machiavelli 22, 23)
The examples that Machiavelli provides are founders of great civilizations. After facing initial difficulties in establishing their reign, these men were able to hold onto power with ease. It was necessary for Moses to find the people of Israel in Egypt so that they would follow him to get out of servitude. It was fitting that Romulus had been abandoned at birth and that he left Alba because otherwise, he would not have founded the Roman Empire. Machiavelli explains that these leaders could not have displayed their virtue had it not been for the opportunity to do so. These opportunities are what made these men happy and their virtue enabled them to be recognized as the rightful princes of their lands. Thus, Machiavelli makes the point that virtue without opportunity to use it is wasted and without virtue, opportunity is wasted.
Another primary virtue of Machiavelli’s prince is self-reliance. Those who gain power by their own ability and depend least on fortune will succeed at maintaining power because they will have built a solid foundation for ruling. This is because rulers who acquire principalities with the aid of others may have ease in doing so, but will encounter problems in maintaining their position. In chapter VII, Machiavelli considers how private citizens can become princes through good fortune. He recalls how two princes, Francesco Sforza and Cesare Borgia, displayed virtue to lay the foundations of their reigns. Sforza became the Duke of Milan by displaying great strength and an ability to keep his state. Machiavelli writes that Sforza possessed “a great of virtue of his own… which he had acquired with a thousand pains he maintained with little.” (Machiavelli 26) Sforza was a mercenary who betrayed his contract to take the city of Milan. With the right policies and great courage, Sforza went from being a commoner to having power that was easy to hold on to. Borgia, on the other hand, was became a prince due to his father’s influence. As a result, Borgia’s could not maintain his rule after his father’s influence disappeared. In a display of brilliance, Borgia employed Machiavellian virtue to restore his order. He lured an opposing family with gifts and a promise of friendship so that he could kill them all. Furthermore, Borgia won the loyalty of his people by putting a very cruel man in charge of his state and later took him out of power and had him publicly executed. Cesare Borgia was highly praised by Machiavelli because he was well equipped to deal with potential problems without relying on the help of others. By doing so, he proved himself as a virtuous prince. Machiavelli stresses the importance of a stable foundation, stating that “…Whoever does not lay his foundations at first might be able, with great virtue, to lay them later, although they might have to be laid with hardship for the architect and with and with danger to the building.” (Machiavelli 27) Borgia acted to ensure his self-interests the entire time – by building the loyalty of his army and gaining the respect of those he conquered, he displayed a tremendous amount of virtue.
The conceptual link between Machiavellian virtue and the notion of power is evident when analyzing the original text of The Prince. Machiavelli specifically uses the Italian term virtù to convey this meaning. Virtù closely translates to virtue, but is also derived from the Latin word virtus, meaning manliness. This distinction is important to understand when analyzing Machiavelli’s discussion of the qualities an ideal prince should possess. In chapter XV, Machiavelli explains that because The Prince serves as a handbook for rulers, he is not interested in talking about ideal cities or imaginary republics. He writes, “I depart from the orders of others… many have imagined republics and principalities that have never been seen or known to exist in truth; for it is so far from how one lives to how one should live that he who lets go of what is done for what should be done learns his ruin rather than his preservation.” (Machiavelli 61) Here, Machiavelli is referring to Plato’s famous philosophical work, The Republic, which outlines an ideal state. Machiavelli chooses to depart from this idea that rulers should strive to be the ideal state and uphold the highest moral standards in their lives. Instead, he believes that a prince must have knowledge of what is wrong and learn to employ it to his benefit because it is impossible one person to possess all of the qualities that are considered good. In other words, a prince has to learn not to be good – he must learn when to be good and when to be cruel. Cruelty, or vice, should not be criticized if it will benefit the state as a whole. Conversely, virtue must be sacrificed during times it is considered harmful to the prince and his state. Machiavelli expands this concept by asserting the following: “For a man who wants to make a profession of good in all regards must come to ruin among so many who are not good. Hence 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.” (Machiavelli 61) We can draw from this that all virtuous actions can only be considered good if they are efficient in meeting a desired end. A prince with virtue must be prudent enough to avoid vices that would lose him control his state because there will be times where he must engage in cruel behavior. What really matters in this instance is how a prince uses virtue and vice to affect the prosperity and stability of his domain. By safely assuming that everyone pursues their self-interests, it is only sensible that you act on your self-interests Machiavelli says. In doing so, a virtuous prince must distance himself from philosophical idealism. Virtue is to power politics what conventional virtue is to thinkers who hold moral goodness to be sufficient for a legitimate ruler: it is a criterion of political success.