The Amorality of The Prince by Machiavelli

Machiavelli is a pragmatic thinker and a realist in his approach to the world; this leads his fundamental ethical attitude in The Prince to lean towards amorality. Machiavelli himself may not be an amoral person, but his separation of ethics from politics and suspension of morals when prescribing means to achieve power and rule within The Prince can only be viewed as an amoral approach. By examining instances of his employment of consequentialist ethical theory, we can conclude that Machiavelli’s writing lacks a moral sense; particularly by establishing the idea that ‘the ends justify the means’.

In its most general sense, consequentialism holds that the morality of an action is wholly defined by its consequences. Essentially, it is Machiavelli’s concept of justifying acts by the outcomes they produce. An example of these ethics can be found in Chapter 3 of The Prince, regarding the establishment of control over the subjects of a newly acquired principality formerly held by a different ruler. On this Machiavelli writes, “to hold them securely it is enough to have destroyed the family of the prince who was ruling them”. The new prince can establish dominion over the people by wiping out the ruler themselves but the new rule will never be completely secure until the entire family of the former ruler is destroyed(i.e. murdered); this would include any children. The rationale behind this prescription is two-fold: One, that relatives of the former ruler pose a threat because they could foment insurrection and seek revenge, thus unsettling the security of the new rule; and two, subjects of the acquired principality may be hesitant to settle for the new rule while remnants of the old principality still exist. This passage displays Machiavelli’s blatant disregard for human life as he proposes the unjust annihilation of men, women, and children who may or may not pose a threat. For Machiavelli, this action is required for securing power and ultimately results in a positive outcome for the new ruler, and is therefore a justifiable action for the ruler. The morality is dependent upon the outcome and for the ruler the outcome is positive; however, the prescription of the action and the action of unjustly taking life itself is in all actuality, devoid of morals and compromises all ethical boundaries.

The suspension of morality is not limited to acts of the flesh in The Prince. Machiavelli’s consequentialist approach condones acts of manipulation and deception as well. These actions and traits are not virtuous by conventional Judeo-Christian understanding of the word; however, they are acceptable, if not necessary, for a ruler to engage with through Machiavelli’s invocation of ‘virtu’ as an ancient concept of strength and masculinity. In the later chapters of the text Machiavelli transitions from discussions of principalities to the prescriptions of individual behaviors of rulers. He discusses having the appearance of just and true qualities as more important than the employment of them: “Therefore it is unnecessary for a prince to have all the good qualities I have enumerated, but it is very necessary to appear to have them.” This quote highlights the duality of reputation and intention Machiavelli prescribes to rulers. Personal qualities traditionally deemed as ‘good’ and ‘moral’, such as generosity and honesty are only important to a ruler as a function of deception for gain. It is necessary to appear generous to the populace and influential people but strategically place money where it is needed; likewise, one must appear honest but employ cunning. The dissonance between concealing one’s true intentions and a projected reputation is what Machiavelli refers to as dissimulation. This concept in-and-of-itself is fundamentally amoral because it requires a lack of moral sense as it is a complete compromise of one’s integrity. Furthermore, those who follow the Catholic tradition, such as the Floretines of Machiavelli’s time, understand deception, lying, and manipulation as a compromise of their promise to God, whom they have a moral obligation to uphold the commandments to.

Machiavelli’s disdain for religion, which was perhaps aided by the complete corruption of the papacy and the rise of Protestantism, may have contributed to the separation of ethics and actions we see within The Prince. Moral righteousness is often equated with religious piety and practice, and there could have been less incentive to adhere to morals prescribed by a corrupt Catholic Church. The fall from true religious piety negated any moral restraints and obligations prescribed to the subjects of the church. Machiavelli writes in Chapter 18:

He may appear to him who sees and hears him altogether merciful, faithful, humane, upright, and religious. There is nothing more necessary to appear to have than this last quality, inasmuch as men judge generally more by the eye than by the hand… Every one sees what you appear to be, few really know what you are. And with this quote he once again highlights the importance of appearance versus actuality. There is no need for a ruler to engage in pious behavior or religiously-centered moral guidelines as long as they can simulate when necessary. Machiavelli is not hindered by a sense of Christian moral righteousness and is therefore able to subscribe to normative ethical theories such as consequentialism.

Among people who attempt to reconcile Machiavelli’s biography and the context which he is writing under and Machiavelli’s writings in The Prince, there is a notion that because he does not appear to be amoral as a person then his fundamental moral attitude in The Prince cannot be amoral. One might cite Machiavelli’s deep admiration for Dante and his work, particularly The Divine Comedy, as evidence for at least some sort of moral framework. Examination of other works indicates Machiavelli’s contempt for those who commit acts of betrayal (Dante’s last circle of Hell), such as conspiracies of which Machiavelli witnessed two. Another might argue that he is simply a pragmatic thinker, not sadistic. His realist approach to life (men are wicked and wretched) allows for a greater understanding of human actions, and is not subversive permission to enact wicked behavior itself. Morality is not inextricably tied to religion so Machiavelli’s contempt for it does not necessarily mean he adheres to no sense of morality. These arguments are not impossible to provide evidence for; however, because we are discussing the fundamental moral attitude within The Prince there must be a separation of Machiavelli the man and Machiavelli’s work in The Prince. The man, himself, may understand right from wrong and subscribe to moral behavior in everyday life, but the disparagement of morality in the acts he assigns another person to commit in the text is what defines his attitude.

Pragmatism. Realism. Florence in 1513 C.E. Machiavelli’s biography and the context which he writes under allows for conscious moral engagement, but he purposefully disengages from these social guidelines when writing The Prince. The lackof a sense of morals in the text may not reflect Machiavelli the man, but that is the amoral attitude he sets forth in his work. He repeatedly assigns acts he deems necessary (annihilation of former ruler’s families, multiple forms of deception, etc) but they pose a danger to one’s own self and relationships by requiring suspension of morals. A ruler who follows Machiavelli’s framework of power risks overextending their physical and mental limitations and becoming lost in their ambition. Through this lens Machiavelli’s amoral writings in The Prince not only poses a threat to the populace and oppositions of the potential ruler, but to the potential ruler themselves; at what point does justifying the means by the ends completely overtake and destroy whatever moral framework that someone has left. Thus, the adherence to consequentialist ethical theory throughout the text can only be viewed as amoral. Despite Machiavelli’s proposal, the ends do not always justify the means if the means are murder, treachery, and deception.