In Defense of True Machiavellianism
The namesake “Machiavellianism” in contemporary psychology and political studies is associated with malice, deception, and exploitation. These are immediate juxtapositions to what we (in the West) first think of once hearing the word “ethics.” It refers to the radical depiction of self-interest as opposed to the virtuous one; the “gone-wrong” examples of government such as the Kim regime in North Korea; and the prevailing motivational ideology that serves as the world’s barrier to goals such as universal peace and liberty.
Be that as it may, Niccolò Machiavelli had in mind his own idea of what defined ethics in the political sphere which notably contrasts from conventional morality ethics. This distinction is sensitive to the realities in human nature – its failures and lapses that when ignored, romanticizes liberalism and leads to an idealistic vision for the future of politics, where opportunities can arise for the powerful to behave tyrannically and the liberties of one can thieve the liberties of many others.
Therefore Machiavelli was correct in asserting that human beings need political ethics – rather than morality ethics – to establish the ideal of unity and loyalty. It is unreliable
…show more content…
The Prince is not justified in making executive decisions whenever he can simply because he has the power to do so; this describes an unprincipled Prince, and this type of Prince violates what it means to be a true Machiavellian Prince in the first place. Machiavelli explained that the Prince not only has the power to act immorally, but understands exactly when it is politically ethical to do so; that evil should be avoided as much as possible but that sometimes it is necessary to practice because misfortunes will inevitably be bestowed upon a state due to the nature of selfish humans (Machiavelli