Does Machiavelli deserve his negative reputation, or is he and his works, especially The Prince, misunderstood

Question

I read The Prince once years back and had trouble finding the clear amorality that has been spoken of. But I should read it again, to be fair and current in my knowledge. Some might say it was immoral. But I more read it as thesis for what Niccolo believed to be practical behavior based on his understanding of history, albeit with some distortions, as I understand it. Still, I believe he did also advice Princes against being unfair to his subjects, and unduly cruel. Granted, that might not have been said out of genuine concern, but if it was there, it could somewhat, at least, contradict the notion that Machiavelli was unconcerned with harm and consequences so long as an end is met.

What do you think?

elliottandelliottmtg, I don't understand your answer. You say no, which I assume you mean to address whether or not Machiavelli is generally misunderstood by those that think he was amoral/immoral, but then go on to praise his his work, The Prince. I don't see how the first part answers the second. Please clarify. Thanks.

I meant how the second part answers the first. Sorry.

Richard K, I never knew that. Very interesting.

Answer 1

The purpose of the "Prince" was prove the Evil of Monarchy. Niccolo was a die hard supporter of the Republic, he was attempting to show that to stay in power any monarch had to be evil, and thus, by implication, that monarchy itself had to be evil. He picked the most reprehensible example he could think of, Cesare Borgia, a man he hated, to be his model of a prince to that end. More, "The Prince" was supposed to be one of two volumes, the second "The Republic" was to provide the contrast showing the proper way a state should be governed. Unfortunately, Machiavelli died before the second work was done. Machiavelli's reputation, a thoroughly undeserved one, is based on the position that to acknowledge a viewpoint exists is to advocate it. It is the same as claiming that every who says Hitler was anti-Semitic must be advocating anti-Semitism. The trouble is that most people are committed to the "every-one knows" position. Everyone knows that Machiavelli was evil, everyone knows that Richard 3 was evil and deformed, at one time everyone knew that the world was flat and that germs couldn't exist. Clearly if "everyone knows it", it must be true.

Answer 2

The problem with the prince is that it is interpreted in a moral context. It isn't a writing of morality of philosophy. It is one of the first works of political science.

The book was actually written as a resume of sorts to show his understanding of power and influence. Political science is not about morality it is an attempt to scientifically understand power, its effect on people, and their reaction to it.

Most of the negetive objections people have to the book is from its historical examples. However the historical examples are only a reflection of the times he lived in. Ever heard of the Sforza's? That is the way the world worked during his time thus his book reflected the cruel nature. It's not that Machiavelli advocated harshness and cruelty he just showed through an early political science and analysis that it was a means that worked.

The prince is not an idealistic work. See some of his other books if you are looking for idealism.

Answer 3

I came across a quote from there which makes me wonder if today's welfare-state politicians have been using it as a training guide.

"Therefore, a wise prince will seek means by which his subjects will always, and in every possible condition of things, have need of his government. And then, they will always be faithful to him." -- Nichio Machiavelli, "The Prince"

Whether one considers "The Prince" to be amoral or not, I think there are still lessons we can take away from it....

Answer 4

I read his bit, the Cat was spot on. It works like a charm too and can be applied to daily life quick as you like. I would gather that the issue taken would be more a revulsion to autocracy which is so well layered down in modern bureaucracy as to be unseen in these times. In Mac Daddies day it was far more visible and by our sanitized way of implementing governance in this age not acceptable to be so blatant. Sure gets thing done, but we'll never know at what true price.

Answer 5

No, the Prince does not deserve its negtive reputation and yes they have been misunderstood and taken out of context because the Prince is a excellent guide to becoming a wise king or advisor.

Answer 6

Thank you for this question, the answers are enlightening. I will review my thoughts on Machiavelli.

Answer 7

"The Prince" was just Mack's way of keepin it real, yo. It's a fantastic work, he's right about everything. He's not advocating anything, he's just telling it like it is.

Love, Jack