Context
This philosophy was born out of political instability and societal chaos: Nicolo Machiavelli was born in Florence in 1469: Wherein it was common for Italian states to mirror a dictatorship (a lottery system that has a select 8 come into power does not make the state immune to corruption, and leveraging of power). The price of failing as a politician were also grim; thus birthing a relentless political philosophy. When he wrote the Prince, his most influential piece, he wrote it as a guide as to how to be a ruler (dedicated to Lorenzo Medici)
The Prince
The goodness of a leader was often conflated with their efficacy as a leader. A good leader is good. Machiavelli rejected this entirely. The only thing that mattered was retaining and keeping oneâs power. He divorces political theory from ethics. He argued that having morals is fine, just ensure that a good leader could not possibly be an effective ruler if they are constrained by subjective, cultural beliefs. This a bold thing to say given the Christian dogma about good good leaders.
Philosophy of Ruthlessness
Ethics and politics
He argues that because a leader cannot be kind and moral all the time, they would often have to compromise their goodness to be a better leader. As a leader requires one to be cruel, disloyal, inhumane, and dishonest, Machiavelli argues that it is better for a leader to be feared than to be loved. Because of the complexities, corruptibility and malleability of love, it is better to rely on the real threat of punishment than the indeterminant love of the people. You cannot control what people love you can control what they fear. Machiavelli distinguishes a feared leader from a hated leader as hatred inspires destruction and animosity, it is best to have people in line than hope for a revolt. If violence is necessary, perform it quickly, quietly as to not create hatred. This follows some of the principles of Opprotunistism
Be loved when possible, be feared when not, but never be hated.
Honesty
Machiavelli argues that as circumstances change, commitments to other people may also change. It may be beneficial to a leader to lie, deceive, cheat and even backstab if a situation necessitates it. After all if people will lie to you, you should also be allowed to lie to others in turn. Although a leader does not need to have virtuous qualities, it is best to appear to have them as to not inspire hatred. A leader will only be judged on what they see and results. The appearances must seem to be inspired by virtues, as they are the basis for perception; results are only to affirm the antecedent perception.
Virtu vs. Fortuna
Virtu is any quality that best allows you to fulfill oneâs desires pitted against Fortuna (fortune). Taking agency of oneâs self against luck, or the Will of higher forces, allows for an individual to take responsibility over their own life. Although there are some phenomena that are out of our control (Fortuna) it is the responsibility of Virtu to make something out of the situation. Because Fortuna constantly changes, it is important to change virtu in tandem: In short, âAdapt or die.â
The way the world is vs. how it should be
By acting in a way that complies to how the world ought to function, a leader is âauthoring their own destructionâ as they live by a framework that does not effectively match the external social climate. He implores humanity to abandon âchildish feelings of guiltâ - only power, brute force and brutality will actualize work with our inner âbeastâ (beast as in the unconscious, shadow, animalistic nature of humanity).