Estrella, Tom Lui M.

IS 8
IS1233 Prof. Paul Lopez
Reaction Paper (The Prince Chapter 1-5)
This book is dedicated by Machiavelli to Prince Lorenzo of Florence to help
him and guide him in governing his nation. In the dedication, Machiavelli begins by
offering a short defense of why he, an ordinary citizen, should know more than rulers
about the art of ruling. He uses a metaphor to justify himself: a person standing on a
mountain is best positioned to survey the landscape below, and a person standing
below is best positioned to survey the mountain. Similarly, writes Machiavelli, “to
comprehend fully the nature of people, one must be a prince, and to comprehend fully
the nature of princes one must be an ordinary citizen.” Implicit in this claim is the idea
that the removed perspective of an observer is a more reliable guide than practical
experience, and a better means of improving the art of ruling.

In the succeeding chapters, Machiavelli builds his case through a combination

of historical examples and methodical argument. The first step in his argument is to
establish the terms and categories that he will use to make sense out of the multitude of
different political situations that exist in the real world. The clear-cut distinctions
Machiavelli makes between different kinds of states—beginning with principalities and
republics—are very effective insofar as they enable him to present his ideas clearly and
concisely. Whether his categories do justice to the complexity of political history is a
different question. Machiavelli creates an impression of directness and practicality by
presenting the world in simple, clearly defined terms.

At the same time, Machiavelli does not rely heavily on theory or abstract
thought to make his points; these chapters illustrate his reliance on history as the basis
for his theory of government. He sets out to answer the question “How best can a ruler
maintain control of his state?” His response, a set of empirically verifiable rules and
guidelines, is derived from a study of the conquests of the past, especially those of the
French, the Romans, and the Greeks.

One important difference between Machiavelli’s philosophy and other

philosophies of government lies in his description of the ordinary subject. Aristotle’s
political writings describe a citizenry that is by nature political and very interested in the
welfare of the community. Though Aristotle disregards the majority of people who live
within the Greek city-state—women and slaves—he considers the free citizens to be the
very reason for the state’s existence. Machiavelli, on the other hand, sees the ordinary
citizen as a piddling, simpleminded creature. Such people will either love or hate their
ruler, depending on whether they are harmed or injured, but as long as the prince can
maintain control, he need have little concern for their welfare.

Thus, the purpose of government is not the good of the people but the stability
of the state and the perpetuation of the established ruler’s control. Machiavelli does not
concern himself with what goes on inside the state but what occurs externally. A
successful prince must always be aware of foreign powers and the threat of invasion. A
focus on power diplomacy and warcraft, at the expense of domestic affairs, is a
distinctive element of Machiavelli’s project.

Finally, the guidelines set forth in The Prince have often been characterized as
“amoral” because some of Machiavelli’s advice—killing off the family of the former ruler,
the violent suppression of revolts and insurrections—seems cruel, brutal, and perhaps
downright evil. Whereas the ancient Greeks conceived of a close relationship between
ethics and politics, Machiavelli seems to separate these disciplines altogether.
Nonetheless, to deny that Machiavelli’s political theory accommodates any form of
morality and ethics would be inaccurate. For example, religion does play a role in
Machiavelli’s state. Moreover, although Machiavelli does not use the words “ethical” or
“moral” as such, later chapters of The Prince suggest that rulers have duties or
obligations that could be considered ethical or moral.