Plan B Forum

So as part of christmas present I got an iTunes gift card which I spent almost exclusively on audiobooks. Ine of which was The Prince by Macheavelli. (Not sure if I spelt that right) Now I'm about 90% done with it and for the life of me I can not see what all the fuss was about. In fact it just seems to be good geopolitical advice.

Finished now. I just don't see what the fuss is. I just don't see the "unscrupulousness", "deceit" or "bad faith" that Webster has attached to his name.

The view of politics as amoral fits, but, amoral is not immoral and since the purpose of the treatise is the aquavit ion and maintenance of power. Since power alone is the goal "morality" or the lack there of becomes a function of the maintenance of that power. Macheavelli seems to have been unkindly been treated for speaking simple truth and the confusion humanity has with equating truth with good or right or moral. (The Bible is often misused as such).

Thoughts opinions comments?

I can add colours to the chameleon,
Change shapes with Proteus for advantages,
And set the murderous Machiavel to school.
Richard III - Shakespeare

In my best tradition, I have nothing to add but point to this website as containing an interesting discussion:

http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/ ... uries-9126

It's been a long time since I read it CP, but what I took away from it is that moral distinctions do not apply. If you are destined to rule, then you must do whatever you can to hold onto the power and lead, the concepts of morality are for the religious and philosophers, not for political leaders. I see it as an excuse for the "corruption of power", in that the only desirable end is to obtain and hold it, crushing one's enemies into the ground (and doing the same to third parties) is immaterial, the end justifies anything.

Now whether that is amoral or immoral depends on whether you think "might makes right" or not. Leaning toward the latter end, I disagree with the conclusion that the decisions are amoral--some acts are immoral and cannot be justified by the ends IMHO. I think Machiavelli would lean toward the conclusion that might does make right; pragmatic, especially in his times. But I think he comes off as a apologist for tyrants.

Amoral exists apart from morals.
Immoral exists against morals.

If morality is a concern you shouldn't be considering a source that only concerns itself solely on one directive that is not morality.

What is that one directive?

Anything but morality.

I don't see it that way, I see it as a apologist for leaders who do immoral things by saying they are not bound by conventional morality. Machiavelli then characterizes such actions as something distinctly apart from the morality they are supposedly not bound by, and says that the actions are objectively amoral (or without any blame attaching to the perpetrator). So those who set themselves up as apart from morality, those who claim themselves to be the leaders and the political elite [edited for clarity] cannot be judged, as the ordinary rules apply to them.

One can either accept Machiavelli's premise or reject it, but I see no "truth" in it.

As for considering The Prince as a source of moral teaching, I have never done so; but I did read it to see what lengths Machiavelli would go to in order to justify the actions of tyrants throughout history. And he does a pretty consistent job of that.

Not really he is damned for the negative things he says and all of the positive things he said are ignored. (Which is exactly one of the things he notes us humans are prone to do). I lost track of how many times he promoted the general welfare of his citizenry but he is damned for pointing out Since the good will be forgotten it is better to be feared.

Well, as I said it has been a long time since I read The Prince (or anything else by him him), but it seems to be his most consistent thesis is that one can (and perhaps must) do whatever one can to seize power and keep it; the "it is better to be feared" example just ranks right in with that.

I read sun Tzu (sp?). or I read most of it. compelling stuff. very interesting. I purposely stopped reading it just short of the end.

as a man who has experienced a good bit of physical conflict, I found it brilliant. as a man of varied interests, I found it fascinating. as a newly minted Christian it was something I was walking away from.

maybe 20 yrs ago I began to read mein kampft. as a human being, long before becoming a man of faith, I found it repugnant. it did not take long to realize that there were things best left un read, best not to be exposed to.

Here's another good article:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/12/10/op ... c=000&_r=0