Victor Hugo says in Les Miserables, "Machiavelli is not an evil genius, nor a demon, nor a cowardly and miserable writer; he is nothing but the fact…" making it clear that contrary to the dominant belief he sees Machiavelli to just be the narrator of thing around him.
Machiavelli’s, book the prince has been the centre of debate since the time it was written owing to its insight in the matters involving virtu, morality, fortuna, freewill, authority to exercise power and power itself. It is important to highlight that in the pre-Machiavellian times it was the idea/ understanding of morality that governed whether or not the authority was deemed legitimate(Nederman 2005). With a belief that righteousness had a great deal to play in legitimacy …show more content…
This idea can be understood by the fact that for him it is not the morality that matters, instead the continued existence of the state. One crucial thing to note here is the fact that instead of the idea of morality, it is the idea of virtù that makes the prince different. Virtù tends to differ from the commonly associated english counterpart- virtue, as unlike virtue which normatively refers to moral excellence, virtù for Machiavelli means the set of personal qualities that the prince ought to have for initially acquiring power, then maintaining the the state and eventually achieving greatness (Machiavelli 1965). Even though, in conventional sense of virtue the use of brute force would be deemed immoral and illegitimate but for the ensuring the continued existence of the state, the prince has all the authority to do it making it clear that conventional virtue has little to do with Machiavellian virtù and both are far removed from each other. In Machiavellian sense, the prince who is the possessor of the best virtù is the one who, when the situation require is willing to take step which not necessarily may fall under the ambit of morality. Counter to the then belief of treating authority and power similarly, Machiavelli treated them coequally …show more content…
law. It should be noted that the whole framework of law only hold a position up the pedestal because of the existence of brute force and it is because of this Cary Nederman in his paper on Niccolò Machiavelli talks about how in Machiavelli’s eyes arms and laws constitute the strong foundations of a well-sorted as well as stable political system. As mentioned earlier the whole legitimacy of law can be traced back to arms/ force backing it up. It can be said that the legitimacy of law depends largely upon the fear associated with the usage of force, moreover, considering authority is impossible for Machiavelli without the existence of power that is required to enforce it, morality becomes a very subjective issue for the Princes unlike that for subjects. It is normally loss of some kind (that is associated with the usage of brute force and arms that), mostly privilege or liberty (not the liberty as we understand it today) that leads us to associate the virtue that we associate with law as being a rigid entity. Fear becomes crucial in this discussion considering Machiavelli believes that people obey laws only because they fear the outcome of not doing so which as mentioned earlier is some kind of
Machiavelli’s, book the prince has been the centre of debate since the time it was written owing to its insight in the matters involving virtu, morality, fortuna, freewill, authority to exercise power and power itself. It is important to highlight that in the pre-Machiavellian times it was the idea/ understanding of morality that governed whether or not the authority was deemed legitimate(Nederman 2005). With a belief that righteousness had a great deal to play in legitimacy …show more content…
This idea can be understood by the fact that for him it is not the morality that matters, instead the continued existence of the state. One crucial thing to note here is the fact that instead of the idea of morality, it is the idea of virtù that makes the prince different. Virtù tends to differ from the commonly associated english counterpart- virtue, as unlike virtue which normatively refers to moral excellence, virtù for Machiavelli means the set of personal qualities that the prince ought to have for initially acquiring power, then maintaining the the state and eventually achieving greatness (Machiavelli 1965). Even though, in conventional sense of virtue the use of brute force would be deemed immoral and illegitimate but for the ensuring the continued existence of the state, the prince has all the authority to do it making it clear that conventional virtue has little to do with Machiavellian virtù and both are far removed from each other. In Machiavellian sense, the prince who is the possessor of the best virtù is the one who, when the situation require is willing to take step which not necessarily may fall under the ambit of morality. Counter to the then belief of treating authority and power similarly, Machiavelli treated them coequally …show more content…
law. It should be noted that the whole framework of law only hold a position up the pedestal because of the existence of brute force and it is because of this Cary Nederman in his paper on Niccolò Machiavelli talks about how in Machiavelli’s eyes arms and laws constitute the strong foundations of a well-sorted as well as stable political system. As mentioned earlier the whole legitimacy of law can be traced back to arms/ force backing it up. It can be said that the legitimacy of law depends largely upon the fear associated with the usage of force, moreover, considering authority is impossible for Machiavelli without the existence of power that is required to enforce it, morality becomes a very subjective issue for the Princes unlike that for subjects. It is normally loss of some kind (that is associated with the usage of brute force and arms that), mostly privilege or liberty (not the liberty as we understand it today) that leads us to associate the virtue that we associate with law as being a rigid entity. Fear becomes crucial in this discussion considering Machiavelli believes that people obey laws only because they fear the outcome of not doing so which as mentioned earlier is some kind of