Rhetoric Quiz :

"The Prince is a concise statement of Machiavell's belief that classical and Christian political theory is unworkable in a world that defines politics as the exercise of power and the struggle for power. It is also implicitly a rejection of a nihilistic counterethic, that only power and brute force matter."

Discuss to what extent you agree or disagree with this statement. What evidence can you bring to support your position?

Rhetoric Machiavelli Quiz 1

Admittedly, even through a modern non Christian’s eyes, Machiavelli’s standards seem slightly skewed if not dissolute. In the Christian’s view, this can easily be magnified to the point where Machiavelli seems the heart of corruption and wickedness. He writes openly and with a near startling frankness; telling the reader that cruelty, false virtue, and flattery is sometimes necessary. However, before we utter appalled declarations and judgments, we should pause and consider where Machiavelli is coming from.

Machiavelli was, obviously, not a Christian. He was not concerned with being a Christian, holding to Christian worldviews, or pleasing God. Machiavelli didn’t consider morality or spirituality part of his political philosophy. It’s not that he thought of it as a bad or impractical or useless thing, he just didn’t put it into his formula for a prince. He had no use for it as a non Christian ruler. Still, that does not mean he considered Christian virtues to be a useless or impractical thing. I believe that he actually upheld them; he just did not clearly include them in his philosophy of a prince.

Machiavelli does not hold onto any specific worldview, religion, or belief-his principle is simple and undeterred: Do what is best for the people and what keeps you in command. Depending on the circumstances and individuals you are dealing with, these methods may vary. It may be necessary for a prince to do some cruel things; but it is also necessary for him to do virtuous things. It is all what keeps his people well and happy and what keeps his in proper authority. It’s not that Machiavelli does not have “morality” or “virtue”; he simply has different values and moral standards than the Christian. Machiavelli's moral standard is: A prince’s most important task is that he does what is best for his people. However, he must also maintain his position as prince for the people’s good as well as his own. The fact that the latter is also a primary goal is, in the long run, not just a selfish desire. It is not good for a country to be constantly changing authorities and rulers; it is healthy for it to have one leader who will be assured of getting it through the “thick and thin”.

These two principles can easily fit into a Christian’s guidelines for life. In fact, the standards laid down by Machiavelli are not, in many ways, very different than those used by Christian leaders of the past. Wherever there is a leader of people, there are always going to be decisions that have to be made; ones that will hurt one in order to save another. A leader has to be willing and able to make these decisions, all very similar to the ones sketched by Machiavelli. The main difference is not what a Christian leader vs. a Machiavellian leader would do; it is why they would do it. A Machiavellian leader’s motivation for doing what is good and virtuous is centered on what is good for his state and people and position. A Christian leader’s motivation is based on Christ and centered on doing what will represent and proclaim his glory best. Often their goals are similar but their reasoning and motivation are drastically different.

The fact that Machiavelli actually includes moral choices and virtues in his philosophy plainly displays that he is neither unethical nor nihilistic. A nihilistic worldview states that “true morality does not exist” and that ethics, even secular, ones are impossible. As I previously stated, Machiavelli does not follow a Christian set of values but he does present a rational and somewhat ethical approach to the ruling of a nation.