**********************************
The Western Canon Mailing List
Moderator: Paul John Barnette Jr.
Activation Date: March 8, 1997
Current Date:  August 15, 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.   


     I agree that sound principles don't necessarily follow from accurate
representations as a general principle.  But I think you are once again
trying to apply moral standards to a work that was not written as a guide
on how to gain and maintain power in a moral or ethical manner.  The Prince
was written as a guide outlining proven ways, as Machiavelli saw them, to
achieve and preserve power regardless of morals, period.

     As to your quote supra from The Prince, it seems to me that whether or
not the quote supports your position depends on how you define "good laws".
 If "good laws" are defined as laws that are moral, or passed by freely
elected legislatures filled with representatives of good conscience, then I
think your position clearly has merit.  If "good laws" are defined as laws
that are put into place for the good of rulers attempting to gain and
consolidate power for themselves and who are willing to enact and enforce
those laws by military might, then I don't. I contend your quote from
Machiavelli intends the latter definition.  Machiavelli saw "good laws" as
laws good for keeping the ruler in power.  Machiavelli is not trying to
make statements as to the the morality of what was necessary to maintain
power.  He is making observations about how power is attained and kept, and
supports his positions throughout the work empirically with examples from
the world of his time and from history.  It may be an ugly reality to those
of us who live in a democracy in the latter half of the 20th century who
can afford the luxury of moral indignation to accept the tenets of The
Prince, but I personally believe it was what Machiavelli was trying to
convey in this work.

     In the context of economic globalization, I submit that many methods
of rule described in The Prince, whatever you think of them, are used today
in many countries around the world, especially those that do not have a
democratic heritage and clearly do not share your idealistic views of what
is right and wrong. All you need to prove this is to look at the political
climate that exists, for example, in many nations in Africa.  I further
contend that many companies who do business in many developing nations
probably utilize Machiavellian principles themselves (unless legally
forbidden by the nation of their incorporation or by some treaty) if they
want to have any chance of success in those countries.   

                                                  ---Bret Williams

>>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.
>
 
    Very well put.  I'm sure that if more people believed this way and
actually acted on their beliefs, the world would truly be a better place
for us all.  I think, on the other hand, that if Chicago academicians were
government leaders in 1505, or for that matter today in any given third
world country, and used what was just said as as statement of political
vision, their reign would be very brief and their bodies would probably
never be found again.

     By the way, do not assume that I necessarily agree morally with what
Machiavelli says, or that I disagree with you, because I am arguing the
position that I am.  At this time, I am making no personal moral statement
as to what I think about the morality of The Prince.  I simply am putting
forth my views as to what I think Machiavelli is trying to convey.    

                                               ---BAW

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

     That doesn't answer my question.  Since some postings contain only Dr.
Adler's name (See Western Canon posting #62) and some contain both of your
names, clearly all of the postings are not composed by both of you. Please
don't think me rude, but if your postings are not joint collaborations,
please don't sign both of your names to them.  I am more than happy to
discuss any topic individually or jointly composed.  I simply would like to
know who wrote what.     

                                                  ---BAW

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