;) Machiavelli and Morality

[Si modo]

Is all reality deserving of a moral judgment?

Discuss.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

In regards to the governance of 'structured' society, I believe it is necessary. Without it, there is chaos and anarchy.

 

[Si modo]

In regards to the governance of 'structured' society, I believe it is necessary. Without it, there is chaos and anarchy.

That is exactly where Machiavelli implies that none is needed, in fact any would inhibit effective governance - what is in the best interests of the nation.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

In regards to the governance of 'structured' society, I believe it is necessary. Without it, there is chaos and anarchy.

That is exactly where Machiavelli implies that none is needed, in fact any would inhibit effective governance - what is in the best interests of the nation.

James Madison stated in Federalist Papers #51: "But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions."

I agree with James Madison. I believe that a person should be free to do as they will, so long as they do not infringe on another person's life, liberty, or property. And as we all know, there are many citizens in society, who live by a different code. We must have laws. And whether we like it or not, morality is the core of the laws we have.

There is a fine line between structure and nanny state government. Henry Ward Beecher once said, "Liberty is the soul's right to breathe. And when it cannot take a long breath, laws are girded too tight." In my opinion, our founding fathers left us the most balanced structure of government ever known to man.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

When is the last time you read "The Prince" Si?

 

[Si modo]

When is the last time you read "The Prince" Si?

About two years ago. And, Machiavelli makes it clear that there is no room for morality in politics, at least. When we can separate politics from governance, that will be a feat.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

When is the last time you read "The Prince" Si?

About two years ago. And, Machiavelli makes it clear that there is no room for morality in politics, at least. When we can separate politics from governance, that will be a feat.

I agree that politics is not the same animal as governance. I also disagree with Machiavelli's position. I think he took a radical turn given what he had said and experienced. While his ideology may appear ideal, it is impracticable.

Your post here takes us right back to what Madison said.

 

[JW Frogen]

I acutally think Machiavelli has moral ends in mind, he wants Italy, in paticular Florence to succeed, to not be at the whims or mercy of foriegn powers, but he believes one can only acheive moral ends through successful application of power which ironically is an a-moral art.

 

[Si modo]

When is the last time you read "The Prince" Si?

About two years ago. And, Machiavelli makes it clear that there is no room for morality in politics, at least. When we can separate politics from governance, that will be a feat.

I agree that politics is not the same animal as governance. I also disagree with Machiavelli's position. I think he took a radical turn given what he had said and experienced. While his ideology may appear ideal, it is impracticable.

Your post here takes us right back to what Madison said.

I can't argue with Madison, one of my faves of the founders. However, he mostly addresses domestic governance. I cannot argue with much of that.

Now that we are essentially a smaller world - mass and realtime comm has made us so - foreign affairs are just as important as domestic affairs. How does morality fit into that? Or does it?

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Nice to see an intellectual thread on here for a change. Well done Si. I suppose we will be discussing Beccaria's "On Crime and Punishment" next, and the parallels between both works, as they relate to the aforementioned topic?

 

[Si modo]

Nice to see an intellectual thread on here for a change. Well done Si. I suppose we will be discussing Beccaria's "On Crime and Punishment" next, and the parallels between both works, as they relate to the aforementioned topic?

Thanks. Now we can see the libertarian and neocon duke it out.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

About two years ago. And, Machiavelli makes it clear that there is no room for morality in politics, at least. When we can separate politics from governance, that will be a feat.

I agree that politics is not the same animal as governance. I also disagree with Machiavelli's position. I think he took a radical turn given what he had said and experienced. While his ideology may appear ideal, it is impracticable.

Your post here takes us right back to what Madison said.

I can't argue with Madison, one of my faves of the founders. However, he mostly addresses domestic governance. I cannot argue with much of that.

Now that we are essentially a smaller world - mass and realtime comm has made us so - foreign affairs are just as important as domestic affairs. How does morality fit into that? Or does it?

Foreign affairs can be as important as domestic affairs. I do not believe it is accurate to categorically state they are. Be that as it may, I do not believe it is our duty, role, or purpose to try and dictate the morality of others, in as much as their actions do not threaten our Republic and the citizenry thereof.

I believe it is important for us to lead by example. If other countries wish to try and immolate us, so be it. And if not, they are on their own, as far as I am concerned.

From a governance perspective, I do not believe the morality of the rest of the world is or should be our focus or problem, save the exception I already spoke of in brevity.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Nice to see an intellectual thread on here for a change. Well done Si. I suppose we will be discussing Beccaria's "On Crime and Punishment" next, and the parallels between both works, as they relate to the aforementioned topic?

Thanks. Now we can see the libertarian and neocon duke it out.

You wasted no time in taking that turn. I have my anti-neocon gloves on. Lets get it on Si.

 

[JW Frogen]

One can witness this Machiavellian dichotomy in US Iraq policy, despite the reflexive criticism the ideals of the war were idealistically based, the removal of tyranny, the democratisation of Iraq and a re-ordering of the basic premises of US Middle Eastern policy to more idealistic foundations.

Yet it was this very idealism which caused the early failures in war strategy, it was assumed a lighter US military presence would be seen as more benign and in keeping with the idealistic political goals, and it was seen that such idealism would be embraced by the Iraqi populace writ large almost immediately.

This caused early failure in the power prerequisites needed to control a country before any idealistic goals can be attempted, and so in the first few years the US was loath to use the sort of a-moral power needed to control the country and establish order and then pursue her more idealistic aims.

Machiavelli would say, first power, then order, then idealism

 

[JW Frogen]

. As to the foreign affairs domestic affairs question, Machiavelli would be clear, he lived in an Italy of city states too weak to fend off foreign interference, he wanted those city states to start practicing the sort of power politics capable of turning them into states, or even one state, strong enough to fend off foreign interference.

He, of all people experienced how domestic politics is at the mercy of any power strong enough to interfere with a country or city state's domestic life.

 

[Si modo]

One can witness this Machiavellian dichotomy in US Iraq policy, despite the reflexive criticism the ideals of the war were idealistically based, the removal of tyranny, the democratisation of Iraq and a re-ordering of the basic premises of US Middle Eastern policy to more idealistic foundations.

Yet it was this very idealism which caused the early failures in war strategy, it was assumed a lighter US military presence would be seen as more benign and in keeping with the idealistic political goals, and it was seen that such idealism would be embraced by the Iraqi populace writ large almost immediately.

This caused early failure in the power prerequisites needed to control a country before any idealistic goals can be attempted, and so in the first few years the US was loath to use the sort of a-moral power needed to control the country and establish order and then pursue her more idealistic aims.

Machiavelli would say, first power, then order, then idealism

Exactly. It was the misguided and misapplied priorities taking moralities into consideration which fundamentally led to grave strategic errors.

 

[Si modo]

I acutally think Machiavelli has moral ends in mind, he wants Italy, in paticular Florence to succeed, to not be at the whims or mercy of foriegn powers, but he believes one can only acheive moral ends through successful application of power which ironically is an a-moral art.

Yes, that's how I see it, too.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

One can witness this Machiavellian dichotomy in US Iraq policy, despite the reflexive criticism the ideals of the war were idealistically based, the removal of tyranny, the democratisation of Iraq and a re-ordering of the basic premises of US Middle Eastern policy to more idealistic foundations.

Yet it was this very idealism which caused the early failures in war strategy, it was assumed a lighter US military presence would be seen as more benign and in keeping with the idealistic political goals, and it was seen that such idealism would be embraced by the Iraqi populace writ large almost immediately.

This caused early failure in the power prerequisites needed to control a country before any idealistic goals can be attempted, and so in the first few years the US was loath to use the sort of a-moral power needed to control the country and establish order and then pursue her more idealistic aims.

Machiavelli would say, first power, then order, then idealism

Exactly. It was the misguided and misapplied priorities taking moralities into consideration which fundamentally led to grave strategic errors.

I assert that it wasn't misguided. I contend that it was and has been the goal and purpose of the employees in Washington, to spread democracy across the globe. That requires that the U.S. act in politically correct manners. In a manner of speaking, it is a form of nation building, in my opinion.

This ideology first took hold with the Wilson administration, and has been gaining ground ever since.

In my opinion, we should be discussing Edward Gibbon's work instead. Much more apropos to where you are headed Si.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

I see no way to remove the morality issue from politics much less the governance of a country. And that is the pitfall of Machiavelli.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Would be nice if we could have a geek bookclub on here. We could read various works and discuss them. Just a thought.