Final test essay (Machiavelli)

Political morality is a very Gray area, it always has been and always will be. Morality in general is a very interesting concept. Is there a solid line between good and evil? Or is there a more of a grey zone. In the renaissance times, Machiavelli was advisor to the Medici family, the most powerful family in Florence. He advocated using violence and aggression to rule, but claimed it was the best for the people. His policies were not to allow a leader to do whatever they wanted, but to be sure the leader was strong enough to do what needed to be done for the people.This does not apply to individuals, only people in political power. At first seems like a very questionable way of looking at morality, but is actually quite effective. 

In his writing, Machiavelli states that a prince must be willing to crack down hard on those who commit crimes. If he is too merciful, individuals who mean to do harm will continue to do so, which will effectively hurt the community. This brings up the concept of moral math. Staying in line with the concept of harsh punishments, it is crucial for an individual in power to be feared. If he is feared, his people will stay in line, which will lead to less crime as a direct result. A leader must get things done. If they are too lenient and too focused on popularity, how can one be sure they will do what is best for their community. 

Now Machiavellis teachings can be seen as very problematic, advocating violence? Take for example De Orco. He was known to be ruthless and violent, yet he was put in charge of a town and ended up killing thousands of people and mounting their heads on pikes as a warning to not fuck with him. He was following Machiavelli to a T. This is not a rational moral rule at all. 

Kant replaces religious obedience with rational moral rule. "What if everyone did this?" . Wrong is wrong and Right is Right. It is wrong to manipulate people and right and wrong are concepts as a way to behave. People should act according to this theory, correct? People should act as if the choice they made would be replicated by every single person on the globe. This is all well and good if we are speaking about individuals that are only worried about themselves. In the context of politics, this is a load of crap. 

Returning to de Orco. He ran the town with a bloody fist, people were scared of him so they obeyed the rules out of sheer fear. When the prince came to visit the town latter, he saw the heads, saw the iron rule and said to de Orco "wow this is pretty snazzy, you fixed the town, but unfortunately I'm going to kill you because how you did it was not cool" (totally paraphrased he did not actually say that). He mounted de Orcos head on a pike so people could see he was dead. The people ended up loving the prince for saving them. Little did they know, they had been manipulated to love a false saviour, but the town was still in order. 

This is moral math, yes a few people need to die, but the end result is positive. A leader must be a fox and a lion, clever enough to work around obstacles, but fearsome enough that opposition will not mess with them. A leader had the job of protecting the people, and begin and angel will not get the job done. A leader that is too nice will be reluctant to make the hard calls that are best for the people.  Order over love. Things may get a bit bloody, but at least the end result will be for the better. A leader is not there to sit around and think "oh if I kill this person, his family will be sad " or "oh killing this criminal is not moral." They are there to get stuff done. Short term pain for long term gain. A leader needs to make decisions that will improve the lives of his people, and if the choice will lead to a better life, the end will justify the means.