Machiavelli Tentative Answer

1. What place do general moral principles have in Machiavelli's analysis? How do they figure in political strategy, and how in becoming a moral person? What would he say to the torture the US used in Guantanamo, or the beheadings by ISIS on videos?

In general, Machiavelli does not seem concerned with morality or with the well-being of the people governed, but only with the success of the ruler in maintaining power. An example of this is when he advocates kicking people out of their homes and leaving them with nothing in order to make room for colonies. His justification is that "those whom he offends, remaining poor and scattered, are never able to injure him" (7). He continues that "men ought either to be well treated or crushed" because in both cases they will not provide resistance to rule (7). By this token it seems that Machiavelli would not have a problem with Guantanamo or with the ISIS videos, at least from a moral standpoint, but would rather evaluate them based on their strategic impacts. However, he might see them as foolish because they serve to make the enemy more upset, while they haven't allowed either side to completely crush the other.

On the other hand, Machiavelli does refer to morality when he discusses gaining power. He views those who come into power through treachery as lower than those who come into it through either "fortune" or "talent," but does not condemn them completely. Of Agathocles, an example he gives of such a ruler, he says, "it cannot be seen why he should be esteemed less than the most notable captain. Nevertheless, his barbarous cruelty and inhumanity with infinite wickednesses do not permit him to be celebrated among the most excellent men" (39). What is the difference between this case and a ruler who is cruel to his subjects in order to maintain power, which Machiavelli condones? Perhaps Machiavelli sees some cruelty as necessary to maintain rule, but unnecessary to obtain it? Is it that Agathocles killed through deception, and that is worse than simple cruelty?