Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 7

Sam Reynolds Gov.

117, 10:30 September 29, 2011 Machiavelli as a Utilitarian Modern history has made the word Machiavellian roughly analogous to conniving and brutal (also known as Nixon-esque). But the man behind the word had far greater depth of thought than history has afforded him. Niccolo Machiavellis The Prince certainly advocates manipulation and less-than-moral tactics on behalf of the government. However, the book is not simply a philosophical text but a product of the time and place in which it was written. That time is a little under three-hundred years from the dawn of utilitarian thought but Machiavellis consequentialist theory is not far in its form and effect. To follow the principle of utility, one must chose actions that will produce the greatest pleasure for the greatest number. I will argue that Machiavelli is a utilitarian who simply sees societal stability as the greatest utility in his time. Through a realist interpretation of utilitarianism, he concludes that the methods of successful princes produce greater stability than the pain they may cause. I will also approach an objection stemming from John Stuart Mills specification of utilitarianism. Given the historical context and intended purpose of The Prince, it is clear that Machiavellis goal is a stable society above all else. In writing directly to the ruler of Florence,

Lorenzo de Medici, The Prince can be read as a far more functional document than many political texts. Rather than describing an ideal society or the principles that support it, Machiavelli leaves instructions to an end that is not entirely defined but easily implied from his focus. Each section is geared toward keeping the current prince in power and strengthening his hold upon society. The success of the society itself is largely absent; Machiavelli does speak about military tactics but there is practically no mention of establishing an economy or system of education. From this absence I can infer that he is less concerned with creating an ideal society 1

than he is with building a workable one. Perhaps the clearest example of this is in his analysis of ruling territories that were previously republican. He notes that in republics there is greater life, greater hatred, more desire for revenge; the memory of their ancient liberty does not and cannot let them rest, so that the most secure path is to eliminate them or live in them 1 (emphasis is mine). Machiavelli admits the virtue and attraction of republics and is not opposed to them on principal. Rather their stubbornness and destabilizing factors make them detrimental to the utility of a larger principality. In this case, functionality must begin with a strong foundation for a government in the form of a powerful monarchy. This conclusion is reasonable given the time period in which he writes as well. In his final section, Machiavelli implores Medici to heal [Italys] wounds, put an end to the sacking of Lombardy, to the taxes on the kingdom and on Tuscany, and cure her of her sores that have festered now for a long time2 Machiavellis fears regarding Italy are geared toward a lack of unity and a general state of anarchy, which explains why he holds a stable society in such high esteem. For this reason his advice is geared toward establishing the bare essentials of a modern society in the forms of internal and external security. Machiavelli seems to view his time as only a few degrees from Hobbes state of nature. From this perspective, stability holds great utility especially in comparison to a status quo of constantly falling regimes. To demonstrate that utility, Machiavelli observes the qualities of principalities in regard to their security and persistence. For example, in hereditary principalities the difficulties in maintaining them are much less than in new states which creates a prince who has less cause and less necessity to offend and a good will of his own.3 Consistency in governance and a

Niccolo Machiavelli trans. Harvey C. Mansfield, The Prince (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1998 [1532]), 21. 2 Machiavelli, The Prince, 102. 3 Machiavelli, The Prince, 7.

suitable foundation for society is not only beneficial for its own sake but, in Machiavellis opinion, it also breeds a mutually benevolent relationship between the ruler and the people. In comparison, he finds that in new principalities one must always offend those over whom he becomes a new prince, both with men-at-arms and with infinite other injuries that the acquisition brings in its wake.4 A persistent government fosters peace and happiness while constant flux, whatever the improvement might be in the actual constitution5 of the government, breeds conflict and tension. Clearly Machiavelli sees utility in molding new principalities into the hereditary kind. Because of the value in long-term leadership, Machiavellis arguments use a utilitarian logic to suggest that the communitys best interest is in preserving the current ruling family as long as possible. This accounts for the design of The Prince being geared toward cementing the authority of a new prince as well. Positing that Machiavelli is holding stability to be the most immediately necessary utility, there is still the question of why he sought this through the amoral methods of principalities rather than kinder forms of governance. Would a utilitarian that attributed the same value to stability as Machiavelli still choose dictatorship over a republic? Here Benthamamite utilitarianism is a sharp departure from the society promoted by The Prince but I will argue that the root disagreement lies in their perceptions of the people rather than a true philosophical difference. In Benthams view, one can be made to be a partizan of utilitarianism when his or her actions are determined by and proportioned to the tendency which he conceives it to have to augment or to diminish the happiness of the community.6 Benthams subject is capable of

4 5

Machiavelli, The Prince, 8. Constitution as in components of and not a document declaring the limits and powers of government. 6 Jeremy Bentham, Principle of Morals and Legislation in Michael J. Sandel, Justice (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007 [1789]), 11.

sacrificing individual interest for the larger good of the community and he draws his principle of utility into the public realm assuming that sacrifice to be possible. The people that populate Machiavellis thoughts are less thoughtful and more akin to caged animals in a zoo. They are dangerous, but easily caged; they desire freedom but are ill equipped to survive without proper guidance and nurturing. He paints them as men [who] willingly change theirs lords in the belief that they will fare better: this belief makes them take up arms against him, in which they are deceived because they see later by experience that they have done worse.7 His people are incapable of seeing any image of the common good and instead react instinctively to any strife. This inability to sacrifice and reason out long term benefits is completely incompatible with Benthams image of humanity. The importance in this distinction between the two philosophers is that it does not preclude the logical validity of utilitarianism for either one. Though Machiavelli puts a realist spin on it, the core principle of utility is unchanged. It is however far more difficult to enact. Having already arrived at the conclusion that stability was the greatest utility, Machiavelli would have been hard pressed to convey that concept in a republican manner. To do so would mean asking the constituents to consider a lack of rights and certain cruelties in order to achieve the more abstract pleasures of a stable society. His observations suggest that people would not ever accept those terms and instead flock to mirages of a more pleasurable existence. Under the leadership of a strong yet purposeful prince this issue is resolved. In a principality, the self-interest of the governing party aligns with Machiavellis utilitarian stability. A monarch is concerned with establishing and maintaining power and, when successful, produces a persistent government. The pluralistic elements of a republic would rarely rally behind a single goal and never with the predictability that a prince would. For
7

Machiavelli, The Prince, 8.

Machiavellis instructions to be properly carried out, he finds far better ally in the self-interest of royalty than in swaying a democracy. In a sense he can almost be seen as manipulating Medici into fulfilling his own goals; Machiavelli is bribing him with power when his true goal remains establishing a stabilizing force in Italy. There still remains the issue of reconciling Machiavellis means with this goal. Undoubtedly stability does hold much utility but his reputation for permitting cruelty and manipulation tends to overshadow this. However, a closer examination of his methods suggests that his goal has a self-limiting effect on the pain that can be incurred in reaching it. While considering Agathocles, Machiavelli concluded that cruelties can be called well used that are done at a stroke, out of the necessity to secure oneself, and then are not persisted in but are turned to as much utility for the subjects as one can.8 The Prince features cruelty as a tool that delineates the boundaries of power rather than as a constant pressure keeping the people in line. In establishing stability, Machiavelli is forced to accept the value of cruelty based on history but only to a point. Essentially, he allows the prince to be viewed as mean, which begets infamy without hatred.9 This distinction draws the line between productive pain and destructive pain. Cruelty to the degree that the people are pushed to revolt is counter-productive to the goal of stability and in that way Machiavellis argument is protected from aiming to produce more pain than pleasure. Furthermore, he also beseeches leaders to use a sparse utilitarian logic in their own decisions. A successful prince should employ limited cruelty because he will be more merciful than those who for the sake of too much mercy allow disorders to continue, from which come killings or robberies; for these customarily hurt a whole community but the executions that come

8 9

Machiavelli, The Prince, 37. Machiavellis, The Prince, 65.

from the prince hurt one particular person.10 His theory on ruling still prioritizes utilitarian stability but is also built upon a foundation a similarly reasoned thought. The statement above is perfectly in line with Benthams utilitarian equation that seeks to limit pain to the fewest and most remote individuals to create larger good; the only gap is Machiavellis realist interpretation of the people. From this Machiavelli instructs princes to rule to maximize utility, which in turn promotes his quest for stability. Benthams broad view of utilitarianism readily accepts Machiavelli but the later work of John Stuart Mill provides greater objections. In particular, he calls for a distinction between expediency and utility and even specifically cites when a minister sacrifices the interests of his country to keep himself in place.11 Is it possible that Machiavellis logic has fallen into the rut of the expedient rather than consider more righteous paths to his goal? The best defense to this is to again acknowledge the more realist approach that Machiavelli adopts in comparison to Bentham and Mill. Any consequentialist theory can be criticized because it aims to choose actions in the present based on the outcome, which is unknown. All three are consequentialists, but Machiavelli faces the problem of imperfect knowledge differently. Rather than guess on outcomes based on a case-by-case basis, he acts more like a rule-utilitarian and observes that principalities are more likely to produce the utility of stability than a republic. Expediency still applies in the sense that Machiavelli has chosen the easiest path to his objective. His reasons for doing so, however, are utilitarian in basis because he seeks to provide the greatest utility to the largest number because it is the easiest path. This distinction is what elevates the arguments of The Prince above Mills objections.

10 11

Machiavelli, The Prince, 65-66. John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism in Michael J. Sandel, Justice (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007 [1861]), 25.

Barring other objections, Machiavelli is ahead of his time in the utilitarian logic he employs in instructing Lorenzo de Medici. All of his advice is aimed towards promoting a stable political society that represents the greatest utility at the time. Princes, and the utilitarian logic he supplied them with, simply provided the most assured means to that end. Ultimately The Prince should not surprise in its love of utility but in the cruelty that can be allowed in the bounds of utilitarianism.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi