The idea that a prince need not be the way that he should appear to be made perfect sense to me when we discussed it in class. But upon further contemplation, I began to wonder more about how legitimate such a distinction is between a person's actuality and his or her "mere" appearance. Wouldn't it be true that, if Machiavelli's prince were to rule for life (presumably, the prince's goal) and carry out the kind of constant checking of his own actions as Machiavelli prescribes, can he really claim to be one way and appear another? I imagine that the prince would be working nearly all the time and under constant scrutiny, meaning that he would be appearing to be certain ways a lot more often than he is "himself." And even if he does get some alone time or time off the job (...doubt it...), if he at least is monitoring his consequential decisions in the way he wants to appear, wouldn't we just say that is how he actually is? How could he claim to believe in mercy or kindness privately while carrying out contrary actions publicly? I think that staking a claim to be a certain way implies that one will typically strive to carry out such merciful or kind actions, and if a person does not use such values to motivate his/her actions, that person is simply lying about how he/she "really is." If a prince says he is a kind person but does unkind things for the purpose of ruling, then he really should make the claim that he is a strong leader since that is actually where his priorities clearly lie.
This concept is a little weirder when applied to the two people who help the old woman across the street. If one "is" selfish and the other "is" empathetic but they do the same action, I would argue that they are only really different inasmuch as they would act differently outside of that particular instance. The selfish person (if he/she was really selfish) would overall live a different life and make different decisions than the empathetic person, because if these are their true natures, then those natures would actually influence their actions. But here I come to a problem when I think of the possibility of these two people being differently motivated all their lives but acting in the same way simply by chance (just like it was by chance that they both helped the old lady across the street because doing so complimented both of their natures). If this is the case, perhaps we cannot place any value at all on their motives or true natures as they compare to one another because their lives do not differ in how they are carried out? Just brainstorming here. Thoughts?
I think that while the end result might be the same (e.g. the old lady crossed the street / the principality remained stable), there is a value in motivations. Even if the receiver of the action still receives the same action, a third party would, assuming he or she somehow knew the motivation, would be able to factor the motivations into judgments of the character of whomever performed the action. More practically, that evaluation would benefit the third party in the future (particularly if that third party was a Prince and he was judging a minister) in deciding how to treat that person in the future.
ReplyDeleteI thought it was interesting that you questioned whether a prince can do things that goes against his own morals and the way he holds himself and still maintain his identity. I think this was a valid point in that it is questionable whether or not a person can pick and choose which of his actions define him. In that sense, I would say that if a person acts in a certain way, he is identifying himself with the value associated with the action. However, the question about whether his actions in ruling define him further suggests to me the bigger question of what is important in ascribing something moral and identifiable value: ends or means. If you were to try to determine the prince's actual values based off of what he claims about himself/his private actions in comparison to his actions in ruling, you would come to a different conclusion about the princes overall identity if you were looking at the means as opposed to the ends. If you were to look at the means, it would seem that his true identity does not5 match what he claims. However, if you evaluated it based off of the ends, which are fundamentally good and aimed at the good of the state, you could still argue that if the prince claims to be virtuous, the prince is still the person he claims to be as he acted in a way to promote the good.
ReplyDeleteI believe you're right in assuming that there is no way for any one person to place value or motive behind another's actions; as Professor Johnson said in class, no one will ever know, for one hundred percent, another person's true nature. We can only assume the values and motives behind others whom we choose to observe. But, the Machiavellian Prince is using this idea to his advantage; surely he understands these concepts and therefore, when he is surrounded by advisers, counselors or his people, he knows exactly what just to say and exactly how to act in order to manipulate everyone into thinking that his values and motives are purely for the sake of the state, which only makes evident that, as you said in your precis, that being a prince is a true and natural skill, one that only a few possess naturally and carry out well.
ReplyDeleteAfter thinking about what you said about being one person yet appearing to be another, agree with your opinion that you cannot effectively separate who you are and who you must appear to be. In class we came to the being/appearing conclusion by focusing on the idea of "self", yet I believe Machiavelli cares much less about who you are, or "self", and much more about action/reaction. The argument of being vs. appearing is perhaps over-complicated compared to Machiavelli's straightforward rhetoric. Rather, I believe Machiavelli wishes us to change only insomuch as we must change to become "shrewd" or "calculative." Since he believes these characteristics to be inherent in a successful prince, it is unlikely he intended for any prince not to be himself since being adaptable to social/economic situations is a characteristic that makes up a person's "self".
ReplyDeleteIn Chapter 15, Machiavelli discusses the proper reputation of a prince. I think it is most important here to understand that Machiavelli believed a prince should focus on maintaining his reputation while also occasionally acting against any facade of morality when necessary. He can make the claim that he is a strong leader while also claiming he is a moral one, as long as he also abandon those morals without blinking when the survival of the state is on the line. He may indeed claim and execute merciful actions; the prince does not always have to be cruel or manipulative. However, he must not be so virtuous that his own personal beliefs prevent him from choosing a non-virtuous path if he must do so.
ReplyDeleteWho you are must be defined by one's actions and the choices one makes because, in the end, those are the only things that one can actually control. Our perceptions and thoughts are not always under our own control due to our inability to control the actions of others, and so the only thing that is truly "you" is how you choose to act. Because of this I would definitely agree that the prince would be the person he is pretending to be.
ReplyDelete