Pros And Cons Of Machiavelli's Virtue

Machiavelli is a man of many labels, but perhaps the most accurate is that he was a main of calculation. For all the talk of evil, cruelty and virtues, he could really be seen as the father of the cost-benefit analysis. In that same light, Machiavelli’s virtù and traditional virtues should not be seen as at odds, but rather as tools that work in tandem. To view them as wholly incompatible by nature is a narrow view at best, and woefully idealistic at worst. Indeed, they appear incompatible only if one contends that a moral man cannot ever commit any act of evil. In this paper, I will argue that Machiavelli’s virtù is comprised of all traits, including conventional moral virtues, and that everything from cruelty to compassion are pieces on a …show more content…
This is because all are faced with situations in which one action is best, and that opting to only ever employ cruelty is a sure path to failure. A clear example of this dynamic goes back to the advantages and disadvantages of the lion and the fox, in reference to which Machiavelli writes, “Those who stay simply with the lion do not understand this” (69). My argument is well encompassed to this sentiment; there are an endless number of actions one can take in face of a given situation and all those possible options must be navigated to then make a decision, but all of them exist together and have their place in a spectrum of choice. Throughout this paper I have argued that Machiavelli’s virtu and conventional moral values are essentially in a state of existing together as available tools for a prince. This can mean choosing cruelty in place of mercy, or committing cruel acts to lead directly to justice, and it is my position that not only does his virtu and traditional virtues exist together, but that they must. Anyone that seeks to argue otherwise, like one staying only with the lion, does not