Machiavelli's Perception Of Morality

Great Essays
The definition of morality is to be “concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character” (“moral”). Machiavelli brings in an alternative form of morality that challenges the traditional perception of morality. This challenge of the traditional sense of morality may be perceived as Machiavelli creating “another moral universe”. Whether it is Machiavelli defending another moral universe without religion or if Machiavelli is proving that morality outside of religion exists is up for debate. Machiavelli is not creating another moral universe, but rather he is pointing out the flaws of depending solely on religious morality. However this opposing idea of a stark contrast between morality as a system of ultimate values and politics as a realm of technical skill is a fallacy due to the ability to master the perception of good morality, as well as many other mastery’s, is a technical skill in the realm of politics.
Machiavelli is concerned with the principles of right and wrong, however he discusses the importance of morality without religion. In society, moral values are often directly correlated with religion, but usually only the good moral values. When Machiavelli removes religion,
…show more content…
When you master it you can use the moral values to your benefit and to increase and better your perception. Perception is an important topic that Machiavelli states “everyone see’s what you seem to be” (1-Machiavelli p. 55). A perception of a ruler doing remarkable things means a more solidified reputation, which allows activity, but once you have the reputation then you are allowed to justify your future actions. Justifying the future actions off of your reputation is much easier when the reputation is pristine rather than when it is questionable because the individual’s intentions are questioned if your reputation is not

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    The most basic views of the differences between morality and religion is natural law and divine law. The connection between these two does not cause peace, but more so creates tension and further disagreements. However, good morals that do not have contact with religion in any way should be followed to make the world a better place to live…

    • 832 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    P3: Those who do not believe in a god do not believe that God can guide our morals. C: Therefore, religious teachings are not an infallible source. This would mean that religious teachings are not an infallible guide, because to be “infallible” means to be incapable of error. Due to there being multiple ways to interpret religious teachings that would mean that they are not free of error. To reexamine the argument in favor, I would say that it is a valid argument, because if the premises are true then the conclusion would also logically be true.…

    • 802 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    Philosophical educator Crash Course, stresses that if the rules of morality are taken from something other than God, then why can others not just find that source and figure out morality for themselves (Crash Course). God no longer needs to command actions if the knowledge of it is available outside of him. This eliminates God from DCT, leaving their view without a commander. DCT is thus false because it is no longer up to God to command moral actions and DCT strictly states the opposite. Although DCT is flawed, Divine Command Theorist could possibly object the Euthyphro Dilemma in efforts to prove their…

    • 1259 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Kant says that the religious law is not useful for ethics. He thinks that religion teaches you bad ethics. Religion tends to focus on things that are not ethically important. In other words, you do right in order to please God and do not do bad in order to avoid upsetting God. This is just self-interest and this is unethical.…

    • 710 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    He calls Russell’s view to be very confusing. Movraodes argues that if morality and religion were not tied together, why would people need to be moral then? Many people of selfish, so asking them to sacrifice something when they have nothing to motivate them to do good is something that just would not happen. Mavrodes also brings up that if you have religious ethics there is a stronger reason to be selfless when it comes to the concerns of others and with secular codes it is…

    • 1094 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Morality, Religion and Conscience 1. How does Arthur respond to those who argue that religion is necessary for moral motivation? According to the essay Arthur definitely oppose the idea that religion is necessary for moral motivation . He believes that people do the right thing because they are afraid of the consequences. He proposes various examples where people think about getting caught or what someone else is going to think of them.…

    • 892 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    While Bayle’s argument is providing some convincing argument such as there are other motives other than passion which determines human behavior, there are other points can be hold opposed to Rousseau’s exclusion of atheists. Rousseau thinks, atheists cannot be a good citizens for the simple reason that someone who does not believe in life after death is unlikely to be willing to sacrifice his own life for the existence or the well-being of the state. Although, a religious person does not necessarily want to sacrifice himself or to kill others and may hold a position of conscientious objector. Since one of the dogmas of Rousseau’s civil religion is to accept the God, one can say that his or her life is given by God. Hence, it may be a duty for them to maintain their self-preservation and may not want to defend the state by taking God given lives of others’.…

    • 1779 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The Divine Command Theory explains that actions are good if and only if God commands them, and actions are bad if and only if God forbids them. This makes the Divine Command Theory independent of human thought and feeling, it is God who determines what actions are moral. If we were to disobey God that would be an immoral thing to do and thus, we would be punished. We are motivated to follow this theory because it is the only reason why we still follow moral laws. If we were to believe that God did not exist, then there would be no reason for people to do the right thing.…

    • 762 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    I do not think these two topics go hand in hand or are related in any way. Of the three ideas I have discussed, I can agree most with Immanuel Kant’s independence thesis and how religion and morality are independent from one another. I believe there is a God, but I am not extremely religious, yet I am still capable of making morally good decisions. I also liked Kant’s idea of immorality, how we are not perfect so immorality is expecting from everyone at some point. I think that for some people religion is a huge part of their actions, whether they be good or bad, but personally religion and morality do not…

    • 1113 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    William L. Craig also agrees that a person can be morally good without the belief in God, however, he states that the debate is about the goodness without God. He argued that Kurtz showed the absence of God in order to show that nihilism is not true. But in Craig’s statement he argued for theism, which is when moral values are bounded by God. He made a statement that if theism were to be true, then we have a sound foundation for morality, and if it is not true, we do not have a sound foundation for morality. Craig started off with theism was true.…

    • 747 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays

Related Topics