Can a Machiavellian Prince be a Good Christian free essay sample

Can Machiavellis Prince be a Good Christian? [Many] have pictured republics and principalities which in fact have never been known or seen, because how one lives is so far distant from how one ought to live, that he who neglects what is done for what ought to be done, sooner effects his ruin than his preservation Hence it is necessary for a prince wishing to hold his own to know how to do wrong, and to make use of it or not according to necessity. (Machiavelli, 62) Machiavellis suggestion to rulers to sacrifice virtue to win and maintain states has rought his political treatise, The Prince, both attention and contention for the past five centuries. While condemned for the ruthlessness and cruelty that it espouses, The Prince has been hailed as the first modern political treatise for the meticulous warfare and statecraft strategies it prescribes to the rulers. It is a sprawling discourse on how a king needs, not ought, to behave in order to maintain his kingdom; Machiavellis Prince is a strategist whose decisions are based on calculating reason rather than on any abiding faith in morality or virtue. His overarching rgument is to value, in order to achieve and hold power, being feared over being loved, being cruel over being kind, being parsimonious over being generous, and so While other texts in the wisdom tradition Platos Republic and Aurelius Meditation, for example emphasize the importance of a ruler being good and Just, Machiavelli concerns himself solely with practicality, dismissing the philosophical tradition of holding rulers to moral perfection. Under the light of comparison then, it is easy to dismiss The Prince as an aberration in the history of classical philosophy; fter all, it never came to be read by a ruler and Machiavelli himself saw little political success in his life after writing it (Machiavelli, p. 9). Yet, interspersed through The Prince are phrases like without burdening the people (Machiavelli, p. 4) which make the reader wonder at the engaging struggle between what he prescribes for the king a relentless and amoral pursuit of reasoning and strategy and what he hopes the king will achieve for his populace, which is overall stability and peace. At stake is a fundamental rift between what Machiavellis Prince does to win and maintain states, and why he does it. Machiavelli prizes a kings use of far-reaching vision to achieve victory that easily dispenses with questions of morality. Yet, he is acutely aware of the king being kindly to his subjects, mentioning several ways in which the king can win and maintain favor with his population, even if that is with an eye on maintaining power in the state. A king who but not in what he provides for his population. Machiavellis treatment of virtue as dispensable in exchange for a greater aim has brought his views on Christianity into extensive discussion; Stanfords Encyclopedia f Philosophy pays homage to this ancient discussion by citing several prominent philosophers who hold competing views on Machiavellis perception of religion. Some claim that he was profoundly anti-Christianl while others believe the opposite, citing the central biblical themes [that] run through Machiavellis writings, [and which include] a coherent conception of a divinely-centered and ordered cosmos in which other forces are subsumed under a divine will and plan2. This paper complements this discussion by evaluating The Prince under the light of the Gospel y Matthew and establishing that Machiavellis prince is unchristian as a person but Christian in his duties as a ruler and in what he provides for his people. On the relationship with the nobles Machiavelli states that there are two distinct parties in each city the nobility and the people, or the masses and his advice on warfare and statecraft treats each very differently (Machiavelli, p. 43). He is aware of the different roles that each part of the population plays in bringing a king to power and in keeping him there. He is deeply suspicious and mistrusting of the nobility, seeing in their ambitions an inherent onflict with those of the masses. At each step of the process of winning and maintaining power, he emphasizes this conflict of interest and overwhelmingly supports favoring the masses over the nobility. While coming to power, he says it is better to come to sovereignty with the aid of the people rather than that of the nobles; the nobles consider themselves a rulers equals while amongst people, there are none who are not prepared to obey him (Machiavelli, p. 43). Overwhelmingly then, Machiavellis cruelty is directed towards the nobility and, in xtension, other counselors and lords in the kingdom. He advices kings to put those nobles to death whose ambitions are misaligned and not subservient to themselves; in particular, he hails Cesare Borgias strategy of executing Ramiro, a lord, in order to prevent him usurping excessive authority. If the nobility in a princes kingdom can be compared to the apostles who Jesus delegates the task of proclaiming his message, then Borgias treatment of the nobility lies in stark contrast to Jesus treatment of the apostles. Jesus trusts his apostles completely, entrusting them with the responsibility f healing people in his absence. He also takes them in full confidence, addressing them directly instead of talking to them in parables like he does with his people. Machiavellis expectations of absolute loyalty from the nobility is similar to Jesus expectations from the apostles, yet his mistrust and suspiciousness of their ambitions force him to be cruel and selfish enough to kill his fellow rulers, an action deeply in contention with the way Jesus treats his own fellow men. must be treated differently and selectively based on their strength, their usability, nd the support they lend to the kings kingdom. This is in addition to the blanket advice to never, never let a strong king take power in the neighborhood. He again uses Cesare Borgias example to demonstrate the right way in which to balance severity with kindness towards kings in the neighborhood (Machiavelli, p. 35); Borgia knows how to gain friends and soldiers, get the population to love and fear him, and eliminate those who can or will harm him. His severity towards enemies revolts against yet another tenet of Christianity that asks people to love their enemies and o kindness unto them (5:44). On the relationship with the people In contrast, Machiavellis treatment of the masses is less consummate with absolute cruelty. While he still prescribes a Judicious use of violence to keep the population in fear, his actions are much more motivated by the desire to maintain stability in and gain favor with the population rather than by any abject sense of mistrust. A Machiavellian ruler is at various times portrayed to be a protector of the people, a defender of their way of life, and sometimes Just a leader who keeps them in order. He states that a king is better protected if his population loves him, claiming, The best fortress for the prince is to be loved by his people, because if he is hated by them, all the fortresses in the world will not save him (Machiavelli, 83). He ponders over the difficulty of maintaining control over a state if the populace hates its king, stating several times that while the king can use his armies to fend against external danger, all of it will be in vain in the face of the internal threat of an unhappy population. Happy, however, is an ambiguous word in the world of Machiavelli. It seems that, for Machiavelli, subjects in a society derive happiness partly from being able to maintain their old ways of life (Machiavelli, 28) and partly by being loyal to their king (Machiavelli, 65). To maintain stability and fealty in his population, Machiavelli advises the prince to use force Judiciously; he must prefer being considered clement and not cruel (Machaivelli, 65), but still not be lenient enough to let this clemency allow the country to go to ruin. In the larger scheme of things, then, Machiavelli says a king much not mind the reproach of cruelty; because with a few examples [of ruelty], he will be more merciful than those who, through too much mercy, allow disorders to rise (Machiavelli, p. 65). Furthermore, he claims that if there are factions of the population that seem threatening, the king must be ready to use force to swiftly and surely suppress any signs of rebellion. This, he says, is better than letting any seeds of discontent from turning into a war (Machiavelli, p. 3). Needless to say, Jesus of the Gospel according to Matthew would never espouse such actions. In stark difference to a Machiavellian prince, Jesus expounds the virtue of urning the right cheek (Matthews, 5:39). Jesus attitude towards the people in his kingdom is that of absolute benevolence and his actions preach tolerance and Famously, he also says that those who use the sword must perish by the sword. A Machiavellian prince, in stark contrast, uses h is sword to maintain peace in his kingdom and to inspire fear in his people. As a leader, Jesus also deals extensively with the private lives of his followers. He is privvy to their troubles and extends his help to each and all. He extends the message that helping others is to welcome God into the home. Machiavelli, in contrast, overwhelmingly supports non-interference in the moral lives of the subjects. He makes no mention of the king having any obligation to reform the population. He believes instead that a leader must let the newly acquired subjects maintain their way of life so as to minimize any cause of rebellion (Machiavelli, p. 9). In all his dealings with people, Machiavellis prince must project himself to be a paragon of generosity, loyalty, humaneness, integrity, and scrupulousness (Machiavelli, p. 70). This again lies in stark contrast with Jesus who tries to hide his iracles and his kindness, and also expects his followers to do the same (23:23), for Jesus does not have any need to parade his kindness, while Machiavellis prince needs to use it as a weapon of persuasion and popularity.