“…The ideals of Christianity are charity, mercy, sacrifice, love of God, forgiveness of enemies, contempt for the goods of the world, faith in the life hereafter, belief in the salvation of the individual soul as being of incomparable value—higher than, indeed wholly incommensurable with any social or political goal, any economic or military or aesthetic consideration...whatever their intrinsic value, are insuperable obstacles to the building of the kind of society that he wishes to see; a society which, moreover, he assumes that it is natural for all normal men to want—the kind of community that, in his view, satisfies men’s permanent desires and interests.”
Machiavelli’s ideas for society contradict the fundamental Christian ideals that were particularly embraced by Thomas Aquinus, however, this seems to stem more from their differing ideas about basic human nature and wants than from a direct wish to oppose Christianity. Aquinus clings to a hopeful view of society and claims that above all else, humans want to be “good.” Conversely, Machiavelli believes as said by J.R.R. Tolkien, “Men above all things desire Power.” Each man formed their concept of the ideal community off these root wants and came to very different conclusions. I intend to explore Machiavelli’s thoughts about society in light of the individual’s strive for “power” and compare it with those of Aquinus who manages to form his idea of a perfect society while upholding the Christian ideals.
It is notable that Machiavelli and Aquinus are writing in entirely different times. The world of Aquinus is static. In his time (c.1450) it was believed that all knowledge had already been discovered and only thoughts of past philosophers as well as historical events could be used to arrive at any new conclusions. Life conditions were bad and the poor populace embraced the Christian idea of “salvation,” a belief that in the next world everything would be better than their awful existence on Earth. Machiavelli on the other hand, lives in a time of change as powers are shifting and princes are conquering new lands. In his writings, he seems ultimately more honest about man’s prejudices and tendencies to do things for their own interests than Aquinus, who seems to always expect the best from people, given they can keep on top of their concupiscence.
Machiavelli’s goal through The Prince is to explain how to gain power. He claims that men need Virtu, Prudence, and Fortuna to achieve this. His tactics are often those of manipulation through both people and circumstances. He claims that Christian ideals don’t support a good society; he has a somewhat pessimistic view of human nature. In The Discourses, it is said “…all men are bad and ever ready to display their vicious nature, whenever they may find occasion for it…men act right only upon compulsion…”(117-8). Aquinus would disagree, as he believes that men are naturally inclined toward the good and only stray from instinct when distracted. However, both men can agree that men have some basic needs to achieve their own levels of “happiness.” Aquinus claims that sex, family, and a political life are necessary. If expanded, he would include virtue, companionship, community, and acts to exercise virtue to his list. He feels that missing any one of these will prohibit one from being fully happy and will be regretted later on. Machiavelli also endorses political life as a human need, but has added money, sex, power, and glory to his mix; aspects of for life which seem wholly unconcerned with Christianity.
From the very beginning of The Prince, Machiavelli side-steps the Christian ideals. He says when taking over a state, “the blood of the old rulers must be extinct” (The Prince 8) He suggests that in order to gain control, one must not only overthrow the current Prince, but also his entire family line to protect them self from future attacks. While this concept makes sense, (naturally the family will want revenge on the new ruler), killing off the family disregards the Christian idea of “mercy.” This would be tricky for Aquinus. He may disagree with Machiavelli here, as he believes that “only evil men are punished.” But He also believes that rulers are appointed by God, and only choose to do what is for the common good of everyone, upholding the “Eternal Law.” After disposing of the old ruler’s family line, Machiavelli introduces his first general rule:“…men must either be caressed or else annulated…(The Prince 9)” A ruler must be kind to their newly acquired state to keep the people from treating you with vengeance. At this point, Machiavelli is endorsing “charity,” though it comes from a cunning place rather than from one of goodness.
VIRTUE VS VIRTU
Use of “Virtu,” is listed by Machiavelli as a crucial element in his plan to achieve personal power. “Virtu” translates to “skill,” “virility,” and use of the essential characteristics like bravery, pride, and strength. Aquinus would look to something more fundamentally good, “Virtue,” meaning honor and integrity. “It cannot be called virtue to kill one’s fellow citizens, betray one’s friends, be without faith, without pity, and without religion; by these methods one may gain power, but not glory” (The Prince 32). Machiavelli argues that being good isn’t the same as being successful. People are not inherently good and the “good man” is doomed in the quest for power. It is better to have virtu than virtue. Machiavelli says in The Prince that sometimes one must be cruel to the people in order to get the desired circumstances. Machiavelli cites Cesar Borgia as his example. Borgia hired Remirro de Orco, (who Machiavelli describes as a cruel and able man) to oppress the people of his newly conquered state, meanwhile forming a very democratic judicial system. To win the love of the people, Borgia had de Orco cut in half, and placed them in the center of town with a bloody knife, so that he may look like a hero. Borgia manipulated how he was being portrayed to achieve his desired image. He acted as a player on the political stage and made people believe what he wanted them to. As Machiavelli later explains, one should appear as a fox and lion, to appear without weakness in order to keep his power. Conversely on the subject of Borgia, Aquinas would surely find oppressing the people and then killing this man (a moral sin) just for the theater of it, to be grievously wrong.
PRUDENCE AND JUSTICE
Prudence is one of the only things that Machiavelli and Aquinus put equal faith in, though to different ends. For Aquinas prudence is about using one’s reason to consider the common good. Machiavelli is more concerned with using prudence to evaluate the most opportune time to act, and to use foresight (like Roman doctors). For example, “…prudence consists in being able to know the nature of difficulties, and taking the least harmful as good. (The Prince, 85)” Continually he encourages play on circumstances and settling for being “good” on a relative level, and not to the fundamental Christian level. In addition, Machiavelli feels that there is a place for prudent cruelty. In order to keep up the necessary fear from the people, the ruler occasionally will have to exact cruelty upon them. His strategy involves being very swift with the punishment and drawing out rewards to keep the people happy. He feels that generosity is a waste; that a person in a position of power can only be generous with other people’s money. In this case, it is the people that deny a Christian ideal. While they should have “contempt for the goods of this world,” in truth, the people never get tired of free stuff. In short, Machiavelli’s prudence is one without moral ties, prudence in judgment.
Aquinus writes, “…the will that wills contrary to erroneous reason wills contrary to conscience.” (On Law, Morality,and Politics, 5) For him, circumstances are much more black and white than those of Machiavelli. All situations have their own an equation involving working with or against reason, prudence, or conscience. The result of this equation tells whether or not the choices are for the “Good” or if they are sinful. Aquinus feels humans are given all they need to make good choices, that “A just person rejoices in just actions,” (On Law, Morality,and Politics 113) meaning that one should enjoy being good, as that is their natural state. Aquinus looks at a prince as leader who applies the law of nature to real human situation using his morally aware prudence. For him, princehood has a far less commanding status than for Machiavelli. According to Aquinus, the rulers and the use of laws are intending to keep order, and to encourage people to uphold the eternal law, to do what is the common good.
FORTUNA
The last of Machiavelli’s required characteristics for Power, Fortuna, means “fortune.” Machiavelli says, that “Fortune is the ruler of half our actions” (The Prince, 91). Machiavelli uses two analogies to describe it. First he explains that fortune is unpredictable like a river, it has the ability to destroy or obey provisions made by man; it can be fierce, it can change circumstances. As all Machiavelli’s tactics involved reacting and manipulating the circumstances, it is clear why he would grant fortune as half ruler of our actions. After this, Machiavelli claims that fortune is also like a woman, in that it is fickle and needs a fierce man to tame her, one who will do so with force. This may also be why young men are so keen to go after fortune. The aggressive youth want to manipulate fortune, so they may get their glory. This relates to Machiavelli’s view on conquering and the art of war: “A Prince therefore should have no other aim or thought, nor take up any other thing for his study, but war and its organization and disciple, for that is the only art that is necessary to one who commands” (The Prince 57).
He claims that even in times of peace, a man of power should always be scheming to manage fortune. Aquinus argues that a “just war” is okay, but other than that, war should always be avoided. Machiavelli would disagree. He feels that there is no point in avoiding a war when it is bound to happen. Avoiding war simply gives the enemy more time to prepare. In direct commentary on virtue, the translator of the Prince says, “Machiavelli’s count against Christianity, like that of Nietzche after him, was that by glorifying humility and pacificism and the weaker virtues, it dulled the fighting edge of the state”(Intro to The Prince p.xxxvii) It’s not that Machiavelli particularly disliked the virtues, rather they simply don’t support the kind of image he would wish to convey as one looking for power. For example, “Forgiveness of Enemies” would never work in a warring situation. When in power, one cannot appear to have a soft spot. A ruler must be a fox and a lion. When striving Glory, one would never back away from an enemy.
While Christian Ideals may be outstanding tools for those attempting to live a life invested in morality, for Machiavelli the ideals don’t help him get towards his goals for Power, Glory, or Fortune. He is invested in harnessing Prudence to evaluate the circumstances, and circumstances do not always call for virtuous actions. Quite often they call for cruelty, theatrics, frugality, war, and selective annihilation, hardly things that would be embraced by Aquinus. But Aquinus was not trying to cultivate power. All he wanted to do was to encourage the people to use their given reasoning skills to do what was the best for their souls. His world is one of contentment. Machiavelli’s is one of brutal but awesome Power.
No comments:
Post a Comment