Lecture 4: Ethics and Political Philosophy
Emilie Van Daele
It is clear that we can interpret The Prince as practical philosophy. It considers the very practical question
of how to obtain and maintain power and Machiavelli gives us some very practical answers to this
question. But this practicality does not yet mean moral practice. The practical philosophy that Machiavelli
outlines is explicitly distinguished from ethics – and theology. It concerns the question what it means to
act good within the political domain – when we understand the gaining and maintaining of power as
political. What can be good in the political domain can be objectionable in the ethical.1 So why should we
read The Prince in the context of the course Ethical Theory and Moral Practice?
The subject matter of The Prince isn’t about a specific ethical theory, but concerns in my opinion the
meta-question if ethics should be present in all domains of human life. Is the ethical domain a domain like
other domains (politics, economics, science) or should ethics govern these other domains? And are there
domains of human life that aren’t determined by ethics? More specific The Prince concerns the relation
between politics and ethics. Can politics be independent of ethics? Or does political action has to be
observant of certain moral rules? Does it have to focus on the results that it brings about or does it need to
be observant of the consequences of these results? And what about the means that are used to bring about
these results?
Is politics in The Prince defined independent of ethics? To answer this question we need to define what
Machiavelli characterizes under the political. An extensive part of The Prince concerns power and how to
acquire and maintain it. A lot of methods to obtain and maintain power are permitted; methods that would
be objectionable on an ethical level. Machiavelli gives us an analysis of the concept of power. But does
power mean the same thing as the political? It is often said that Machiavelli was the founder of political
science and that his originality lied in the fact that he was the first to detach the political domain of other
domains of human life. But power does not necessarily mean the political. There are other conceptions of
the political – for example Hannah Arendt’s conception of the political or that of Carl Schmitt. In The
Prince however we can say that the political concerns the obtaining and maintaining of power or a
principality. The main foundations of a state are good laws and good arms. Machiavelli however writes:
“because you cannot have good laws without good arms, and where there are good arms, good laws
inevitably follow, I shall not discuss laws but give my attention to arms” (XII, p.39). Somewhat further he
writes: “A prince […] must have no other object or thought, nor acquire skill in anything, except war, its
organization, and its discipline” (XIV, p.47). The political is indeed in great part connected with
militarism. To achieve peace, stability, security and unity one should be so strong that no one in or
outside the country can attack or affect your power or position. The possession of strong forces are
therefore of crucial importance. And these forces should be preferably native troops.
It is interesting to notice why Machiavelli rejects mercenary troops. Mercenaries didn’t kill each other in
battle. They took prisoners, but without demanding ransom. They never fought at night and never
campaigned in winter. All these codes were followed to avoid exertion and danger (XII, p.43). So
according to Machiavelli these mercenary troops couldn’t be trusted because they had some kind of
1
Some of the statements made in The Prince are in fact so objectionable and unethical that it becomes almost
comical. We can therefore ask ourselves if The Prince is meant seriously or satirically. But despite the fact that it
could be satirically, it still raises a couple of interesting questions.
1
military code. We could say that this military code is a kind of ethical code not to harm each other.
According to Machiavelli military campaigns – that determine power and politics – should be without
such ethical code: The Prince is full of atrocities that are allowed to acquire and retain power and
principalities.
Is the political domain in The Prince independent of ethics? To answer this question in a differentiated
manner we will make a distinction between an amoral and immoral moralism on one side and a moral
amoralism on another side. In the first case the political is determined by an ultimate end that may be
called ethical. Its methods however are independent of ethics. Politics is a domain in itself with its own
logic and laws, but is ultimately determined by a greater good. In The Prince the political is determined
by an ultimate end: peace, stability and unity. One may describe this as a pure political end: when there is
peace and stability it is easier to maintain one’s position and power. Nevertheless, we can interpret it also
as an ethical end. Peace can be seen as a summum bonum. But peace at what cost? It is an armed peace
where some can be sacrificed for the greater good. And this is justified in the name of this single end.
So in The Prince we can speak of an amoral moralism: in the name of peace (a moral end) we can use
methods that are amoral (methods that aren’t seen in categories of good or bad). Some however would say
that The Prince represents an immoral moralism: in the name of peace (a moral end) we can use methods
that are immoral (methods that oppose what is seen as good). Amoralism is in fact distinct from
immoralism. Amoralism means the absence of moral beliefs, whereas immoralism recognizes moral
beliefs but does not accept them or opposes them. To decide if Machiavelli stands for an amoral moralism
or an immoral moralism you have to answer a different question. If you believe that some can be
sacrificed for the greater good, you will find The Prince amoral. If you believe that no one can be
sacrificed for the greater good, you will find The Prince immoral.
The only way to avoid this question is to abandon the idea of a greater good. Only then can the political
be independent of ethics. This is the case of a moral amoralism. Amoralism is the case when there is no
greater or ultimate good. But why should we call this amoralism moral? We call it moral because there
are no final ends anymore that can justify the means. People can’t be violated for the sake of an ultimate
good. In this case there are no ultimate ethical ends. There are only means. And these means and
procedures should be ethical. Let us compare this with Machiavelli’s writing on the mercenary troops.
Mercenaries didn’t fight for an ultimate end. One day they fought for the king, the day after they fought
for the opponent of the king. But while they were fighting they made use of a military code that was in a
sense ethical. They didn’t kill or harm each other and they avoided danger. The morality present in this
case comes down to avoiding pain and suffering.
To conclude we can say that the questions raised by The Prince are in fact still very relevant questions
today. What is the relation between politics and ethics? Can politics be independent of ethics? Is ethics
one of several domains or should ethics be a domain that governs all others? These are questions
concerning the good and the right. Let’s consider for example the debates between liberal and
communitarian thinkers concerning the priority of right. Liberalism claims that a just society cannot
promote particular ends. It must enable its citizens to pursue their own ends and conception of the good.
Therefore a just society must be governed by principles that do not presuppose any particular conception
of the good. “This liberalism says, in other words, that what makes the just society just is not the telos or
purpose or end at which it aims, but precisely its refusal to choose in advance among competing purposes
and ends. In its constitution and its laws, the just society seeks to provide a framework within which its
citizens can pursue their own values and ends, consistent with a similar liberty for others [emphasis
2
added]”.2 In this case no decision is made concerning the ultimate or final ends. Instead a just framework
is provided that makes sure that no one is harmed. The means and procedures that citizens use to pursue
their values and ends should be just. Maybe liberalism is in fact a form of moral amoralism. The question
that remains is: can we agree on how this framework should be constructed and doesn’t this once more
imply a conception of the good? This concerns questions about human rights and human dignity.
2
Sandel, M. (1984). The Procedural Republic and the Unencumbered Self. Political Theory, 12 (1), 82.
3