Machiavelli is a pragmatic and realistic thinker in his approach to the world; this leads his fundamental ethical attitude in The Prince to lean toward amorality. Machiavelli himself may not be an amoral person, but his separation of ethics from politics and suspension of morality when prescribing ways to achieve power and domination within the Prince can only be considered an amoral approach. Looking at examples of his use of consequentialist ethical theory, we can conclude that Machiavelli's writings lack moral sense; notably by establishing the idea that “the end justifies the means”. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay In its most general sense, consequentialism holds that the morality of an action is entirely defined by its consequences. This is essentially Machiavelli's concept of justifying actions by the results they produce. An example of this ethic can be found in chapter 3 of The Prince, concerning the establishment of control over the subjects of a newly acquired principality, formerly held by a different ruler. On this, Machiavelli writes: “to keep them safe, it is enough to have destroyed the family of the prince who ruled them”. The new prince can establish his rule over the people by eliminating the ruler himself, but the new power will never be completely assured until the former ruler's entire family is destroyed (i.e. murdered ) ; this would include all children. The justification for this prescription is twofold: first, those close to the former leader pose a threat because they could foment an insurrection and seek revenge, thereby endangering the security of the new regime; and second, the subjects of the acquired principality may be reluctant to settle for the new rule while vestiges of the old principality still exist. This passage shows Machiavelli's blatant disregard for human life as he proposes the unjust annihilation of men, women, and children who may or may not pose a threat. For Machiavelli, this action is necessary to secure power and ultimately results in a positive outcome for the new ruler, and is therefore a justifiable action for the ruler. Morality depends on the outcome and for the leader, the outcome is positive; however, the prescription of action and the action of unjustly taking life itself are actually devoid of morality and compromise all ethical boundaries. The suspension of morality is not limited to acts of the flesh in The Prince. Machiavelli's consequentialist approach also condones acts of manipulation and deception. These actions and traits are not virtuous according to the conventional Judeo-Christian understanding of the word; however, they are acceptable, even necessary, for a leader to engage in through Machiavelli's invocation of "virtu" as an ancient concept of strength and masculinity. In the final chapters of the text, Machiavelli moves from discussions of principalities to prescriptions for individual behaviors of rulers. He considers that the appearance of just and true qualities is more important than their use: "It is therefore not necessary for a prince to have all the good qualities that I have listed, but it is very necessary to appear to have them . » This quote highlights the duality of reputation and intention that Machiavelli prescribes to leaders. Personal qualities traditionally considered "good" and "moral", such as generosity and honesty, are only important to a leaderas part of a deception aimed at obtaining gain. It is necessary to appear generous to the population and influential people, but to strategically place money where it is needed; likewise, one must appear honest but be cunning. The dissonance between hiding one's true intentions and a projected reputation is what Machiavelli calls dissimulation. This concept in itself is fundamentally amoral as it requires a lack of moral sense as it is a total compromise of one's integrity. Furthermore, those who follow the Catholic tradition, like the Floratines of Machiavelli's time, understand deception, lying, and manipulation as a compromise of their promise to God, whose commandments they have a moral obligation to uphold. which may have been facilitated by the complete corruption of the Papacy and the rise of Protestantism, may have contributed to the separation of ethics and actions that we observe within the Prince. Moral righteousness is often equated with religious piety and practice, and there could have been less incentive to adhere to the morality prescribed by a corrupt Catholic Church. The fall of true religious piety has negated all the moral constraints and obligations prescribed for the subjects of the Church. Machiavelli writes in chapter 18: He who sees and hears him can appear completely merciful, faithful, humane, upright and religious. There is nothing more necessary to appear than this last quality, to the extent that men generally judge more by the eyes than by the hand... Everyone sees what you appear to be, few really know what you are. you are. And with this quote he once again emphasizes the importance of appearance over reality. There is no need for a leader to adopt pious behavior or religiously centered moral guidelines as long as they can fake it when necessary. Machiavelli is not hindered by a sense of Christian moral righteousness and is therefore able to subscribe to normative ethical theories such as consequentialism. Among people who attempt to reconcile Machiavelli's biography and the context in which he writes and Machiavelli's writings in The Prince, there is a notion that because he does not seem amoral as a person, his moral attitude fundamental in The Prince cannot be amoral. One might cite Machiavelli's deep admiration for Dante and his work, particularly The Divine Comedy, as evidence of at least some kind of moral framework. Examination of other works indicates Machiavelli's contempt for those who commit acts of treason (the final circle of Dante's Hell), such as the conspiracies Machiavelli witnessed twice. Another might argue that he is simply a pragmatic thinker, not a sadist. His realistic approach to life (men are wicked and miserable) allows for a better understanding of human actions and is not a subversive license to engage in wicked behavior itself. Morality is not inextricably linked to religion, so Machiavelli's contempt for it does not necessarily mean that he does not adhere to any sense of morality. These arguments are not impossible to prove; However, because we are discussing the fundamental moral attitude in The Prince, there must be a separation between Machiavelli the man and Machiavelli's work in The Prince. The man himself can understand right from wrong and subscribe to moral behavior in everyday life, but the denigration of morality in the acts he charges another person to commit in the text is what defines his attitude. Keep in mind: This is just a sample. Get a personalized article from our expert writers now. Get a.