MODERN MACHIAVELLIAN: A DIALOGUE

Florence: I’ve been trying to determine who might be Machiavelli’s ideal Prince.

Lorenzo: His ideal Prince?

Florence: Yes, a neo-Machiavellian – someone who has truly embraced the advice given by Machiavelli via his infamous treatise, The Prince, in order to create a more just and stable society. That’s what I consider to be the objective of The Prince, anyway. Although Bertrand Russell judged The Prince to be “a handbook for gangsters”, his icy analysis of human behaviour and tactics actually forces people to face essential questions about politics and morality. It sheds light on and justifies a variety of policies utilised by the politicians of today.

Lorenzo: Oh, I see. Who do you have in mind?

Florence: Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was certainly a neo-Machiavellian. The decision she made to wage war in the Falklands revealed some definite Machiavellian traits. He suggested that leaders should act on their gut feelings, to avoid problems at hand becoming more serious. Her controversial decision to sink the ARA General Belgrano in 1982 actually aided Britain’s victory in the Falklands war, by eliminating part of the Argentinian’s powerful naval force. Britain’s success certainly fired up patriotism and boosted her popularity at home, and led to Thatcher’s landslide victory in 1983. Via The Prince, Machiavelli urged decisiveness in political decisions, a characteristic which certainly defined the Iron Lady’s leadership. Resoluteness displayed strong political authority in Machiavelli’s eyes, and this resoluteness would enable security and control over a state and its people.

Cesare:  Yes she was decisive, but do remember that she was equally divisive. Her policies caused division amongst the British public, particularly those related to trade unions. After the miners’ strike of 1984-5, she was able to crush the NUM and institute various legal obstacles to industrial action. In this way, she hastened the fall of communism. However, she was responsible for widespread privatisation throughout Britain – this sort of capitalism is an important dominant feature of the world today. Nevertheless, Machiavelli highlighted the danger of being a ruler who was not liked by all. He believed opposition was harmless if the ruler could keep rebellions under control, but if not – naturally, problems would arise. Additionally, he stated, “it is safer to be feared than loved when one of the two must be lacking”. It’s fair to say that the Iron Lady was more despised than feared or loved!

Lorenzo: Hmm, that is true. Despite some Machiavellian traits, she wasn’t the ideal Prince who Old Nick had in mind. Yet I can think of a perfect example of one who was both feared and loved. Certainly a Machiavellian in character and action.

Florence: And who might that be?

Lorenzo: ‘The Incorruptible’, Maximilien de Robespierre.

Cesare: Ah yes. Arguably the most important idea revealed in The Prince is that the ends justify the means – this was certainly evident during Robespierre’s violent and bloody ‘Reign of Terror’ (1793-1794) during the French Revolution. Owing to constant threat from foreign enemies (France was at war with various countries) and the ever-present threat of internal enemies (counter-revolutionaries) in France, Robespierre deemed it necessary to restrict the freedoms that great Enlightenment philosophers such as Rousseau and Voltaire believed were natural and inherent. Ironically enough, Robespierre believed he was following their philosophies. He took it upon himself to grasp control of the ‘general will’ and shape the direction of the revolution, to deliver France from revolution to a republic of virtue. He believed virtue and terror were intrinsically intertwined. Naturally he was feared (for what a formidable character he was!) but known as ‘the Incorruptible’ for quite some time. The Parisian masses adored him.

Florence: Some historians have claimed that he was power hungry but perhaps he was a tad bit deranged. See, I reckon he genuinely had good intentions for France. But that’s an 18^th century example! Think contemporary Machiavelli!

Cesare: Barack Obama!

Florence: Don’t be absurd.

Cesare: His plan to launch a military strike against Syria, following news of its use of chemical weapons against Syrian civilians, is a precise example where President Obama displays certain Machiavellianism. He was prepared to go to war despite the concerns expressed by the United National Security Council, without the general support of the American public, he lacked a NATO mandate, there was no kind of international collation backing his decision… His decision to intervene military was particularly interesting, especially considering the fact that his promises to elevate diplomacy in foreign affairs earned him a Nobel Peace Prize. Machiavelli would’ve approved of this decisiveness, surely.

Florence: Indeed he did, but that doesn’t justify Obama’s position as an international policeman!

Lorenzo:  Despite this one act of definite Machiavellianism, I think he generally lacks bold policy. Machiavelli wouldn’t tolerate public displays of indecision. That’s not part of the job description for his ideal Prince. Acts of indecision don’t lead to a more just and stable society. I suppose we should really ask, is Obama Machiavellian enough?

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

Is the execution of people, by the state, morally right?

A question debated about for centuries, capital punishment remains a topical issue. A quick Google search can direct you to a variety of pro and anti-death penalty organisations, the most notable anti-death penalty organisation being Amnesty International. There exists a myriad of arguments supporting both sides of the debate: some of which have been used for centuries; other arguments reflect more recent ideas and beliefs.

Retributive justice is a theory that considers proportionate punishment an acceptable response to crime. Cicero stated, in De Legibus (written during the last years of the Roman Republic), “Let the punishment match the offense”. Most people find that this argument agrees with their intrinsic sense of justice. The retributivist theory of punishment leads to Kant's insistence on capital punishment. In his Metaphysics of Morals (1797), Kant argues that the only punishment possibly equivalent to death is death. However, there are issues of regarding proportionality as the justification for punishment. Firstly, you wouldn’t advocate sexual assault upon rapists as a means for justice! Additionally, the existentialist philosophers Dostoevsky and Camus comment on the uniqueness of death penalty in retribution: in that the anticipatory suffering of the criminal prior to their execution outweighs the anticipatory suffering of their victim, thus revealing a flaw in the retribution argument – a notion of ‘double punishment’. 

John Stuart Mill (Speech in Favour of Capital Punishment, 1868) believed that, in the case of murder, punishing someone by their own crime is acceptable; but even he acknowledged that if a mistaken person is convicted to death then there is no reprise. Unlike those who have been sentenced to life in prison, it is impossible to compensate executed prisoners should they later be proven innocent. There is absolutely no possibility of correction or compensation. This reality is as true today as it was in 1868! 

In the world today, the death penalty is at the focus of international law. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), adopted by the United Nation’s General Assembly, recognises each person’s right to life: “no one shall be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” (article 5). As Amnesty International points out on its homepage, the existence of the death penalty violates these rights! However, some may agree with the Kantian argument that a person forfeits their right to live if they instigate a murderous attack.

The great Enlightenment thinker Jean-Jacques Rousseau stated in his infamous Social Contract (1762): “No man should be put to death… if he can be left to live without danger to society”. In many modern democratic institutions, life sentences have been deemed more favourable than capital punishment. The intention of incarceration is to remove criminals from society, thus eliminating their threat.

These are but a few of the many examples justifying why the death penalty is morally right or wrong. However, I believe that the reality of the potential execution of an innocent person alone provides the most compelling argument against the death penalty.

PHILOSOPHY DEMYSTIFIED

Philosophy.

The very mention of the word would no doubt conjure up images of dusty old Greek men lounging around in togas, for some. There is a stigma about philosophy as a subject – that it is merely a dry academic subject, containing the musings of countless pompous intellectuals. 

The term "philosophy" is derived from the Greek 'philosophia', which literally means ‘a love of wisdom’. But to properly define “philosophy” and all that it encompasses… well, this is no easy feat! One of the reasons why there is not a universally accepted definition is that philosophy has no particular subject matter, so it cannot be defined in regard to an individual topic.

However, in a broad sense, philosophy as an academic subject is a study of abstract questions, which are unanswerable by science. These problems are concerned with the nature of existence, knowledge, morality, reason and human purpose. For example, the question of existence – where did the universe come from? Of course, many physicists would cite the Big Bang theory. The philosophical question would be: why was there a Big Bang? The simple answer, explained by quantum mechanics, is that something is more stable that nothing. But why is this the case?

This example, the ultimate question of existence, has too eluded philosophers for centuries. Another reason why “philosophy” is challenging to define is that philosophy is often more concerned with questions than answers. The purpose of philosophy is not necessarily to give answers to pre-existing questions, but in fact to challenge and query existing ideas.

This ‘querying’ involves a logical method. Philosophical investigations often follow four main steps: clarifying the ideas used to express a question; hypothesizing what theories may help to answer the question; testing to see whether there are any counterexamples or hidden contradictions within the question; evaluating which theory seems to make most sense (having looked at all available evidence). In this way – philosophy takes an approach similar to that of science!

I’m certainly no expert, but I truly believe philosophy helps to sharpen one’s critical thinking skills. Philosophy uses and encourages critical thinking. Critical thinking is a tool by which one can reach reasoned conclusions, through a reasoned process. Through reading philosophy, we are not only digesting information, but being prompted to ask ourselves questions that stimulate thinking – this is crucial to the construction of knowledge.

However, it is not necessary to study philosophy academically in order to think philosophically. Let’s remind ourselves of the literal definition of philosophy: ‘a love of wisdom’. In this way, philosophy refers to a state of mind! As humans, we are innately curious beings, constantly questioning things in the hopes of understanding, and we seek to justify beliefs, thoughts and ideas. Therefore, I believe that we are all philosophers at heart!