Hi so this diary actually grew out of a series of exchanges I had with people here about the saying 'the ends justify the means'. To be frank I was rather frustrated with what was being said and with the limitations of a comment so I decided to write this diary.
What follows is a discussion on Machiavellian thought and how it pertains to Consequential and ultimately why I believe it is flawed and even possibly a clever and subtle satire (for those interested I'm mostly Kantian in my ethical outlook).
So please follow me below as we dip our toes into the field of ethics.
First some background, Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli was an Italian who lived during the Italian Renaissance. Like many Niccolò wore many hats during his life including being an official with the Florentine Republic with responsibilities in diplomatic and military matters. His influence on modern political thought is undeniable as his influence on ethics (most specifically political ethics). Proof of that influence can be seen in how his name become synonymous with his most celebrated work and created a new word (Machiavellian).
That work Il Principe (The Prince) is the basis for Machiavellian ethics and was written during an incredibly tumultuous period of Italian history. It was a period of history where Popes, the Italian City States, Spain, France, The Holy Roman Empire and even Switzerland were all vying for control of what is modern day Italy. Government could be and often was short lived and alliances were constantly in flux. The city state of Florentine which Niccolò called home exemplified this as in 1494 the incredibly powerful Medici family was ousted from their 60 year rule of Florentine and was restored back to a republic. That republic would not last even 20 years as the Medici with the help of a Pope (who was Medici) would return to power in 1512. Niccolò having served the Republic from 1498 until the return of Medici was ousted from his position and a year later in 1513 was accused of conspiracy, arrested and tortured severely. In the end denying any and all involvement he was released and 'retired' to his estate never to again be majorly involved in the politics of the day.
It is against this background that The Prince is written with a precise written date being unknown as The Prince is published post humorously some 5 years after his death. Accounts from correspondences do indicate that a version may have been distributed as early as 1513 under the name De Principatibus (About Principalities). For those that are unfamiliar with the format of the book, it is written in the 3rd person as if an adviser is talking to a newly crowned prince as to what must be done to secure his rule. The style actually was fairly popular though before The Prince such works were written for hereditary princes rather then a newly crowned prince.
A full accounting of his work frankly is a class if not several classes as such I want to concentrate on the most famous/infamous aspect of his work that the ends justify the means. To understand precisely what is meant by that let us look at the parts of the book that this concept is derived from. The adviser in The Prince advises his prince several times and in several different ways about the need for what I would call expediency. Arguing that there is public and private morality; that while a prince must appear to be merciful, trustworthy, religious and humane a prince must not actually be these things. Why? Because a prince must be ready to act against these principles if needed. In point of fact sometimes a prince must embrace evil to do good. To use the words of the adviser:
It is best to appear virtuous rather then actually being so.
This combined with adviser arguing that if one must be feared or loved it is far better to be feared then loved (though the adviser does point out that one should not be feared to the point of civil revolt) are the 2 main points behind the philosophy of 'the ends justifying the means'. Though to really appreciate it one really needs to read The Prince because it is pervasive though out the book. For example the adviser when talking about rising to control makes the argument that it is better to calculate all the necessary evil acts (blackmail, assassinations etc etc) and execute them in a single stroke rather then spread that wickedness though out a prince's reign.
It is important to note though that the entire thrust of the adviser's argument is about ruling, about the wielding and keeping of power and a level of expediency marked by the willingness to do evil because the outcome is good.
This is in a nut shell is what it means to say 'the ends justify the means'.
Now why do I assert this is demonstratively wrong? Well there are 2 lines I wish to pursue; first that The Prince is likely a work of satire and effectively a poisoned gift and secondly that the reasoning behind this philosophy is fundamentally flawed.
In regards to the first line, the first point to be made in favor of this is the fact that The Prince frankly runs counter to everything else Niccolò would write about both professional and in his correspondences. For those that do not believe that I encourage them to read his work on republics.
The second point in this line is that the book itself was dedicated to the Medici family specifically Lorenzo di Piero de' Medici. Given that it was written after Niccolò was removed from the government and had been tortured and then banished to his estate; it seems fairly incredulous that Niccolò would be willing to give that same family advice that he actually meant. In point of fact much of his advice about expediency, cruelty and deceptiveness seem more likely to achieve the opposite of the intended effect.
The last point in this line is the nature of the narration. While some will refer to the adviser as Niccolò that is not necessarily true. In point of fact a very common form of satire for the time was the construction of a 3rd party which then satirizes the view by adopting it. Which frankly is exactly what seems to be happening, if Niccolò did believe the views espoused why do it though a 3rd party?
That said even if one wants to argue that The Prince is not a satire the argument made is factually shaky. The entire argument hinges on the being able to argue that the outcome is more important then the method and yet how are we to judge this? If one achieves world peace though killing everyone is that really a justifiable method? The Adviser's argument is that basically one should trust the prince but I don't buy that argument. That invests too much power in a single person without recourse.
This makes the Adviser's argument circular. Namely the prince must do whatever he must to take and hold power, from that power the prince can then act for good outcomes and because the outcome is 'good' the prince must do whatever he must to take and hold power.