Machiaveli The Prince
- This is a preview of the essay.
To view the full text you must login!
In examining the statement "Machiavelli holds that for the good of the state it is sometimes necessary to do evil, yet it is still evil," it is imperative to define the moral foundation or classification of beliefs for which his ideas are derived. It is apparent from his labeling of necessary "evil" deeds that Machiavelli is not a Utilitarian; or at least not in a moral sense. Perhaps from a political point of view his deductions could be considered Utilitarian. Machiavellian principles emphasize the importance of doing whatever is necessary (whatever "the situation demands") not what is moral, but what is politically correct. Machiavelli seems less concerned with whether an act is good or evil, right or wrong, but whether it is necessary, which contradicts ideas held by those deemed Situationalists. Machiavelli seems to hold opinions that could place him as a Deontologist, one who rejects Utilitarianism and admits that there is a price to pay (i.e. going to hell) for taking part in actions one would deem evil. It seems that Machiavelli very clearly distinguishes the difference between good and evil and doesn't try to justify evil the way a Utilitarian might by focusing on consequences.
In this sense, Machiavelli admits that evil actions may be wrong, but will contest that a prince is often forced, in order to keep his position, to act contrary to that which is considered virtuous and good...