Machiavelli 's Machiavelli

2270 Words10 Pages
Machiavelli is often viewed as an amoralist. Is this a correct analysis of Machiavelli? Why/why not? In your answer, be clear about what you mean by ‘amoralist’. If you think he is not an amoralist, how are moral assumptions or claims evident in what he writes; and does this undermine his position? Why/why not? If you think he is an amoralist, how does this show in his text; and does this make some of his arguments or claims defective or challengeable? Why/why not?

Machiavelli should not be considered an amoralist, for reasons I will be discussing hereafter. Firstly, I shall very clearly outline what I consider ‘amoralist’ to constitute. Then, I will argue that Machiavelli is not an amoralist because he is merely advocating for an effective ruler. This requires the ruler, or ‘the Prince’, to cede his presupposed moral values, and transcend the normal expectation of humanity, to an amoral existence. I argue that Machiavelli himself, is moral, in that he is encouraging how a Price should behave, in order to be an effective ruler, which achieves the greater good. The Prince, however, is amoral. Because, as Machiavelli describes it, this world is not idealistic, and politics has no room for morality to be considered.
Before I consider why Machiavelli should be considered moral, I will first define what is to be understood as ‘amoral’ and ‘moral’. I will then describe the situation Machiavelli was responding to, by giving some insight as to how and why Machiavelli constructed
Open Document