**********************************
The Western Canon Mailing List
Moderator: Paul John Barnette Jr.
Activation Date: March 8, 1997
Current Date:  August 12, 1997
Current Membership: 100
**********************************

> I think Machiavelli's principles remain sound because they
> continue to accurately represent the way the world operates, not the way the
>world should operate.  Machiavelli's work is one of political 
>reality,  not a statement on the ethics of that reality.

Our point here is that sound principles do not follow from accurate
representations. Here is an example of a patent fallacy found in The
Prince:

"The chief foundations of all states, new as well as old, are good
laws. As there cannot be good laws where the state is not well armed,
it follows that where they are well armed they have good laws."

Now it simply does not follow from the fact that good laws depend on
an adequate police force, that where the police force is adequate, the
laws will necessarily be good. We are ignoring the highly questionable
character of the first fact. We are only interested in the non
sequitur here. It is truer to say that happiness depends on health
(than that good laws depend on an effective police force), but it does
not follow that all who are healthy are happy.

>But until that day arrives, if ever, I think we have to accept that
>old political calculus and admit, for good or ill, that "The Prince"
>remains an honest assessment of how the world operates and what must
>be done in many cases if you want to win at the game.

Honest assessment of how many politicians operate, no doubt, but not
of the policies of most governments.  "What must be done" is correct
in the cause of justice, but not in the case of expediency as there is
no more serious "game" than politics--a branch of moral philosophy.

Furthermore, this smacks of the end justifying the means. Nothing in
the world can justify a means except the end which it is intended to
serve. A means can be right only in relation to an end, and only by
serving that end. The first question to be asked about something
proposed as a way of achieving any objective whatsoever is always the
same. Will it work? Will this means, if employed, accomplish the
purpose we have in mind? If not, it is certainly not the right means
to use.

But the purpose a man has in mind may be something as plainly wrong as
stealing or murder. With such an end in view, he may decide that
certain things will help him succeed and others won't. While he would
be right, from the point of view of mere expediency, in using the
former and not the latter, is he right morally in taking whatever
steps might serve as means to his end? If not, then he is not morally
justified in employing such means.

This brings us to the heart of the matter. Since a bad end is one that
we are not morally justified in seeking, we are not morally justified
in taking any steps whatsoever toward its accomplishment. Hence, no
means can be justified--that is, made morally right--by a bad end.

But how about good ends? We are always morally justified in working
for their accomplishment. Are we, then, also morally justified in
using any means which will work? The answer to that question is
plainly Yes; for if the end is really good, and if the means really
serves the end and does not defeat it in any way, then there can be
nothing wrong with the means. It is justified by the end, and we are
justified in using it.

People who are shocked by this statement overlook one thing: If an
action is morally bad in itself, it cannot really serve a good end,
even though it may on the surface appear to do so. Men in power have
often tried to condone their use of violence or fraud by making it
appear that their injustice to individuals was for the social good and
was, therefore, justified. But since the good society involves justice
for all, a government which employs unjust means defeats the end it
pretends to serve. You cannot use bad means for a good end any more
than you can build a good house out of bad materials.

It is only when we do not look too closely into the matter that we can
be fooled by the statement that the end justifies the means. We fail
to ask whether the end in view is really good, or we fail to examine
carefully how the means will affect the end. This happens most
frequently in the game of power politics or in war, where the only
criterion is success and anything which contributes to success is
thought to be justified. Success may be the standard by which we
measure the expediency of the means, but expediency is one thing and
moral justification is another.

Machiavelli was a young politician and writer on political science,
not political philosophy.

>P.S.:  For my own clarification, which one of you am I addressing my
>remarks to directly?

All postings from the Center for the Study of The Great Ideas are
written by Mortimer Adler and myself.

Max Weismann

*********************************************************
The Western Canon Mailing List
pbarnett@geocities.com
The Western Canon WWW Site
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/6681/index.html
*********************************************************