**********************************
The Western Canon Mailing List
Moderator: Paul John Barnette Jr.
Activation Date: March 8, 1997
Current Date:  August 19, 1997
Current Membership: 100
**********************************

Response to Western Canon #078

>>What is more important?  Maintaining a strict ethical policy or
>>obtaining an end that is fair and justifiable to all parties
>>involved?
>======================
>An end that is most just to all, of course.

You did not fully answer my question.  Instead, you briefly responded 
to my basic premise and did not discuss my example.  Let me be more 
specific.  

You stated that you believe that "the end" is more important than the means
of obtaining "the end."  Then why do you insist that Machiavelli's writing
has immoral and unethical standards when "the end" is good for the public?
It appears that from the aforementioned reply that you are using only 
part of my analysis for your own "end."  The "end" you are seeking is 
to win all arguments regarding Machiavelli even if you have to 
disregard sound analysis that is does not favor your position.  The 
effect is to reinforce the principles of Machiavelli's writings that 
you have labeled unethical.

I would like you to analyze a couple of 20th Century issues in the context of
Machiavelli's principles.  The first scenario comes from the 5th Amendment to
the United States Constitution.  The 5th Amendment requires that no citizen's
property may be taken from the citizen for public use without just
compensation.  I believe it would be a fair assessment that, in general, no
citizen of the United States would want their property to be taken by the
government even if he or she does receive just compensation.  Utilizing
Machiavelli's principles, the taking would be justified if the public as a
whole gains from the taking.  What is your personal opinion and your analysis
of Machiavelli's stance of this issue?

Another issue comes from the 18th and 21st Amendments of the United States
Constitution.  The 18th Amendment began prohibition, and the 21st Amendment
repealed prohibition.  The government believed that prohibition was good for
the public; however, prohibition helped create organized crime.  After
prohibition was repealed, organized crime remained.  Assuming that
prohibition was good for the people, Machiavelli would probably say that
prohibition should have never occurred because of the problems it helped to
create.  What is your analysis of this issue?  Answers to these questions
accompanied by your rationales would help everyone find "sound and practical
answers to questions about the good life and the good society" as written in
the Introduction to the Center for the Study of The Great Ideas.

Stephen H. Byrd

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