Machiavelli does say that "it is often necessary to act against mercy, against faith, against humanity, against frankness, against religion in order to preserve the state," which does seem to say that the state, and not personal or dynastic ambition, is the proper end of statecraft.
But a ruler who is basically a robber, or who uses his 106744 essay to take women, will come to be hated. As I have aleady said, he must stick to the good so long as he can, but being compelled by necessity, he must be ready to take the way of evil [e, come di sopra dissi, non partirsi dal bene, potendo, ma 106744 essay entrare, nel male, necessitato] These are not means to preserving the state, but means to preserving people.
If they ever catch on, they may eliminate us -- and that I am prepared to face. The supreme metaphysic of the state as an end in itself is that of Hegelfor whom the state is simply more real and more divine than any individual.
If the abstract entity the "state," "society," or the "collective" has the moral priority, then the even permanent abridgment of any amount of freedom is no moral wrong. He may be troubled and unhappy, properly, about that, but he has already conceded the principle -- or rather the exceptions to the principle.
Large segments of the population, not just in European democracies but now even in America, are deceived by this tyrannical program, under the influence of a press and intelligentsia that has long been dominated by statists, who have always sought to deny to citizens the means of resisting the state.
This superficially looks like another statement by Machiavelli in the Discourses: The essence of the dilemma for Caiaphas was simply the existence of one in comparison to the existence of many, the "whole nation.
We see the rationale next: This meant that the Revolt would be a fight to the death, with no compromise sought from the Romans. A ruler who is loved but not feared may not be obeyed in need, which could spell disaster for all. Thus he must be disposed to change according as the winds of fortune and the alternations of circumstance dictate.
It is not, indeed, that freedom must never be abridged, but it is a very different matter to see this as a choice by necessity in a moral dilemma rather than as an unproblematic pursuit of a fundamental "collective" good.
We have a starting point. Walker translation, Penguin Books, p.
We must credit Caiaphas with avoiding, for a time, such evils [ note ]. Only the Bolsheviks were saved, so that they could continue slaughtering the workers and peasants in whose name they had seized power. He would have had no difficulty recognizing Lenin and Trotsky, or Hitler and Stalin, for the monsters that they were -- all of whom made "war on virtue, on letters, and on any art that brings advantage and honour to the human race.
Those among them who are suspicious become loyal, while those who are already loyal remain so [diventano fedeli quelli che ti sono sospetti e quelli che erano fedeli si mantengono], and from subjects they are transformed into partisans [e di sudditi si fanno tua partigiani].
Although not clearly delineated, Machiavelli often does speak as though the worthy and glorious state is the one, not only of secure and substantial dominion, but one where the lives, property, and prosperity of its citizens are secured.Machiavelli and the Moral Dilemma of Statecraft.
Kr.s.n.a replied "If he fights fairly, Bhîma will never succeed in gaining victory. If, however, he fights unfairly, he will surely be able to kill Duryodhana.Download