Biographical information
Niccolò Machiavelli was born on May 3rd of 1469 in Florence Italy. His father was the attorney Bernardo di Niccolò Machiavelli who was married to Bartolomea di Stefano Nelli Relatively little record of Machiavelli’s early life remains. He worked under Paolo da Ronciglione and Marcello Virgilio Adriani, both of whom would have educated Machiavelli in the arts of Latin, Greek, history, and philosophy. He was wealthy and well educated by the standards of his time.
The political climate in Italy at the time was tumultuous and full of conflict, with various families and city states all vying for power. It was in this cutthroat world that Machiavelli began to construct his political and moral philosophy. For roughly 30 years, until 1494 Florence had been ruled by the Medici family until they were violently overthrown in 1496, when Machiavelli was 27 years old. This led to the Medici being replaced by the Florentine republic, the previous leaders of the city state who ran Florence as a Republic. This change in the power structure paved the way for Machiavelli’s political career to really begin to flourish during the early 16th century.
Emerging from his obscurity at the age of 29, Machiavelli was promptly appointed to the head of the Second Chancery, an extremely prestigious position in Florentine society. In this role he oversaw the foreign affairs of the territories subject to Florence. In addition he also wrote many government documents. He held the position, while working under the Chief Magistrate Piero Soderini, until 1512. Machiavelli also undertook many diplomatic missions during this period in addition to forming a militia for the Florentine government that replaced the unreliable hired mercenaries. All together Machiavelli oversaw over 40 diplomatic missions during his 14 years in the Chancery. He enjoyed a great level of fame and wealth during this period but things would change.
In 1512 the Medici family, with help from Pope Julius II and Spanish troops, overthrew the Florentine government and took back the city state from the Republic. Many of the old government workers were prosecuted under the new regime including Machiavelli who was accused of conspiracy in 1513. Following his accusation he was tortured and exiled to his fathers farm just south of Florence. Here he focused on his literary pursuits. He wrote many of his works here including The Prince which was believed to be authored in 1513 as well. In addition he also crafted many plays and authored historical analysis of the Roman empire in his work Discourses. Much of this writing, including The Prince, was intended to put himself back on a better footing with the Medici, in particular to Giuliano and Lorenzo Medici, both of whom had rehabilitated many of Machiavelli’s former Florentine colleagues. Towards the end of his life he was able to improve his reputation with the Medici to an extent. However, Machiavelli never returned to the political sphere to the extent that he used to be involved under Florentine. He continued to work until 1527 when he died at the age of 58.
Machiavelli’s Moral Philosophy
Machiavelli questioned the notion that all power had to be attained through some legitimate authority and moral righteousness and instead asserted that there is no relation between ethical behavior and the acquisition of power. The only concern of a ruler should be their maintenance and strengthening of their own position at the top of the social hierarchy. Summed up in a single phrase, Machiavelli’s core philosophy could be regarded in a sense as “the ends justify the means”, the unity and preservation of a state is worth all efforts (moral or not). In this sense the use of power is inherently good because it leads to harmony through fear and oppression, in his own words “Power is the pivot on which everything hinges. He who has the power is always right; the weaker is always wrong” (The Prince). Machiavelli also made note of the fact morality did not seem to be an intrinsic element of human nature. As he wrote in The Prince “one can say this in general of men: they are ungrateful, disloyal, insincere and deceitful, timid of danger and avid of profit…. Love is a bond of obligation which these miserable creatures break whenever it suits them to do so; but fear holds them fast by a dread of punishment that never passes” (The Prince).Following from this observed premise, Machiavelli concluded that all moral or ethical attempts at just rule were simply a ploy to maintain arbitrary authority by creating a fictitious social contract of trust and care between those with power and those who did not. If all humans are inherently immoral, then why should a figure of authority disguise their immorality under the false pretense of compassion towards their insubordinance. Instead, Machiavelli Posited that “It is much more secure to be feared than to be loved” (The Prince), and the artificial benevolence expressed by the head of state could be done away with. Those who instilled fear in their subjects would have more authoritarian sway over their inferiors and thus better maintain the hegemony of the state. Essentially Machiavelli was the ultimate cynic.
To contextualize the reason this view was so revolutionary at the time of Machiavelli’s writing we need to look further into the past and analyse the attitudes previous thinkers had about the philosophy of moral rule and governance. The theory of virtue ethics was espoused openly by many of the classic philosophers antecedent to Machiavelli, particularly the Aristotelians, and put forth the case that moral virtue, the ability to conduct oneself in a proper and reciprocal manner, ws inherently good and just. As stated by Aristotle “Virtue means doing the right thing, in relation to the right person, at the right time, to the right extent, in the right manner, and for the right purpose”. The idea of virtue was a deontological sense of good rather than the teleological “goodness” that Machiavelli praised. Despite being a religious man himself Machiavelli held a fair share of contempt for certain aspects of Christian doctrine, especially the idea of piety. He explained in The Prince and Discourses that pious actions held individuals back from achieving Virtù, (Italian for virtue, and with a different philosophical definition than “virtue” as used by the Aristotelians). By Virtù Machiavelli meant essentially the array of personal qualities that would allow a leader to cement their authority, such as deceit, intelligence, and social manipulation. A “virtuous” individual in Machiavelli’s eyes is one who is able to exert influence and command with little effort on their part. Usually he suggested virtue by implementing it through the use of force which would in turn impose the civilian population and keep them in order. Another key aspect of Machiavellian virtue is the ability to quickly adapt to varying circumstances despite any moral problems or contradictions that may result. This is why when we describe someone as machiavellian (part of the dark triad along with narcissism and psychopathy) we mean that they are “two-faced” and are skilled in manipulating and double crossing those that they interact with.
Virtù is antithetic to and a defense from another key substance in Machiavelli’s metaphysics: Fortuna, or fortune. This can roughly be conceptualized as the random chaotic forces of human nature and the non-human natural world. These forces of course are directly opposed and are hostile to the order that must be painstakingly preserved in the form of the state. Thus Virtù, the ability a ruler has to maintain authority through the expression of power, is the skill set that serves as a shield against the chaos of Fortuna. Machiavelli somes this up well in his own words in The Prince when he explains that Fortuna has the same characteristics as “one of our destructive rivers which, when it is angry, turns the plains into lakes, throws down the trees and buildings, takes earth from one spot, puts it in another; everyone flees before the flood; everyone yields to its fury and nowhere can repel it.”. In order to maintain the social and economic status quo and in order to control fortune, we as leaders must be proactive and control its chaos.
The leader who expresses power through force is morally right in the eyes of Machiavelli. This is because preserving the unity of the state is more in line with the common good than individual honesty or small scale social order. This means that the final cause, in this case social harmony, justifies all means of achieving said end. This was the core principle of Machiavelli’s moral philosophy and it is one that has been reflected upon greatly, and for better or worse, has shaped modern society to a large extent.
Glossary of terms
Virtue: the duty of being benevolent and acting in harmony with nature and others. This was primarily an Aristotelian idea that was later incorporated into Christianity and other movements.
Virtù: Machiavelli’s sense of virtue was the ability to defend against the chaos and disorder of the world by commanding power.
Fortuna: The chaotic aspects of human nature and of nature itself that threaten order, especially that of the state. Must be defended against by Virtù.
Deontological: concerned with morals at the level of intention and not the level of effect
Teleological: concerned with morals at the level of effect without considering if the intentions were good,
Comparison: Machiavelli vs Hobbes
Niccolò Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes would never have gotten the chance to talk: Machiavelli died nearly 60 years before Hobbes was born, and they lived hundreds of miles away from one another. Nonetheless it would be interesting to imagine an alternate reality where these two figureheads of philosophical thinking could come together and discuss the similarities and differences surrounding their views of moral philosophy.
Both Machiavelli and Hobbes were deeply concerned with the way society and its human constituents behave. In particular they sought to understand how the moral character of individuals is shaped and does shape the greater social order. Hobbes and Machiavelli both dealt with harsh political climates in their respective times and locations and both dealt with exile as a result of regime changes (Machiavelli from the Medici family and Hobbes from the parliamentarians). As a result politics was a key focus for both men as they sought to understand what the factors were that produced the circumstances that they found themselves in. Hobbes was more theoretical and scientific in his approach to studying human behavior as opposed to Machiavelli who relied on empiricism and his observations from his personal experience in the court. Regardless of their philosophical methodologies both men reached a similar conclusion about human nature, and it was one full of pessimism and a cynical attitude.
Machiavelli’s views on human nature, which have been previously elaborated upon, essentially characterized the individual who sought to follow their self interest and to improve their circumstances to the maximum degree. This of course means that deceit, dishonesty, and occasional violence would be used in the pursuit of these improved material and social conditions. Machiavelli went so far as to make the case that the pursuit of social status and power is always justified; the ends justify the means. In this case the end goal of this “selfish” pursuit (Virtù) is a stable society that is immune to the chaotic forces of Fortuna. This selfish aspect of human nature is ultimately positive and leads to a civil and stable society based on fear and authority.
Thomas Hobbes, in some respects, had an even more pessimistic view of the human conditon. The natural philosphy of Hobbes focused on the fact that humans, when in the absence of civilized society, will revert to a state of tribal warfare and brutality. This was the antithesis of that held by Jean-Jacques Russeau who claimed the state of human nature was peace and cooperation, and that society was a corrupting force that inhibited the agency of the individual and led to corruption by the rulers. This theory Hobbes postulated was drawn from his experience during the English Civil War (1642-1651) as a member of the royalist party. All of the death and distruction that Hobbes witnessed informed this view that he held.
In some sense both Machiavelli and Hobbes were authoritarian, at least in terms of contrast to figures like Locke and Russeau. The former two contended that the establishment of the state was advantagous to curtail the chaotic forces of both the negative traits of human nature as well as of the natural world itself. In particular both Machiavelli and Hobbes were advocates of absolute monarchy, the more direct and applicable the power of the ruler the better for the society they had domain over. This view makes sense given the royalist views of Hobbes and the fact Machiavelli spent most of his time chasing a position of increased status as a courtier for the Florentine republic. Locke and Russeau, in contrast, beleived the state, and society in general, to be a repressive tryanical system that was at odds with a benevolent and cooperative mode of human existance in the unvivilized state of nature. Both of these opposing views still exist in the collective imagination of society today and have sparked many great works and debates.
Because of thier remarkable similarities, the differences in the views are subtle and relatively difficult to discern. Firstly is the issue of the morality of the individual. Both Hobbes and Machiavelli believed in the relative immorality of the individual. However Machiavelli believed that humans could be moral and compassionate if it was in their own self interest, while Hobbes believed that (in the state of nature) moral and peaceful behavior was an impossibility, even of the sort that was in the pursuit of individual self interest. As said by Hobbes himself in his 1651 work Leviathan “Life in the state of nature is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”. This leads to another difference between the two thinkers. While both believed a society lead based on absolute power would be ideal Hobbes believed the society itself would create morality among those that it civilized, while Machiavelli didn’t believe the state would inherently create morality. In fact Machiavelli believed that immorality is necessary and a precondition for a functional and strong society, while Hobbes would likely say this type of immorality exists only within the uncivilized state of nature.
Little is known about Machiavelli’s views on the state of nature as he spent more of his time focusing on matters pertaining to his practical role as a courtier rather than a theoretician of philosophy. However Machiavelli made the case that “there is no hidden hand which brings diverse human activities into natural harmony”, suggesting Machiavelli, to atleat some extent, would agree with the contention Hobbes made about the negative character of human behavior within the state of nature.
These two great thinkers would likely have agreed upon far more than they would have disagreed upon in terms of their beliefs about the proper role of the state and the morality of the individual and the of the wider society. They were both convinced there was more evil than good inherent to human nature and that it was societies role as a unifying (and sometimes oppressive) force that prevented chaos from arising and putting an end to the institutions and creations of humanity.
Closing arguments
Despite his infamous reputation Niccolò Machiavelli certainly deserves to be studied. For better or for worse his moral and political philosophies have been adopted by leaders all over the globe. Thus to study the views and policies Machiavelli espoused is to study an influence and inspiration on the world’s greatest military strategists, government officials, and rulers. It is certainly the assumption of many social scientists that humans act in a self interested manner and the empirical evidence backs up this assertion. This means there is a basis for some of the views of human nature that Machiavelli held regarding the selfish nature of humans. His views were revolutionary for the era, and transitioned moral thinking from a frame based on compassion and reciprocal understanding to one based on utilitarianism and mutual self interest. Due to his unconventional and revolutionary views, practical advice, and influence on modern Policy Niccolò machiavelli deserves a place around the table of influential philosophers who have shaped the domain of thought for the modern era.
Bibliography
Machiavelli, Niccolò. The Prince. Oxford World Classics, 1921. (Originally published 1532). Primary source.
This Text summarizes Machiavelli’s philosophy regarding autocratic rule. He lays out the ways a successful leader should operate in order to maintain their standing. Machiavelli approaches this goal from all angles
Machiavelli, Niccolò. Opere. Bertelli and Gaeta, 1960. (Originally published 1532) . Primary source. Web link: https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/thomas-jeffersons-library/interactives/opere-di-machiavelli/
This work is relatively specific and is not widely applicable but it is a primary source. In the work Machiavelli draws the distinction between Hereditary and Mixed principalities and clarifies why the difference is important to being a successful leader.
Machiavelli, Niccolò. Discourses. Walker and Crick, 1985. (Originally published 1532). Primary source.
In this text, the first of his works, Machiavelli analyses the past in order to better formulate his own methods of political rule and manipulation. In particular he focuses on the expansion of Rome up until 293 BCE.
“Niccolò Machiavelli”. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2019. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/machiavelli/
Article outlining the philosophical standpoints of Machiavelli. Covers biographical material as well as his beliefs regarding both moral and political philosophy.
Mansfield, Harvey. “Niccolò Machiavelli”. Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Niccolo-Machiavelli/The-Prince
This article covers Machiavelli’s early life and political career, his writings, and his legacy. It delves into all these areas with at least some level of detail.
“Niccolò Machiavelli”. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Covers a wide array of material regarding Machiavelli. Text goes over information about his life, foundational beliefs, key terminology, achievements, ect.