Why Good People Lose | Machiavelli and The Prince

Mankind in general is fickle hypocritical and greedy this man has been referred to as a devil and his name has been identified with evil deception and cruelty his Works have been burned banned and censored because they were seen as too dangerous to read he is also one of the most misunderstood thinkers in history this is Nicolo makavelli and today we're going to take to look at his controversial recommendations for rulers and we will discover how sometimes being a good person and being a good leader are simply incompatible at various points in this video you might

find yourself becoming offended or outraged at his suggestions and that is absolutely fine but I encourage you to stick it out to the end because despite what you've been told makavelli is not a manifestation of the Antichrist but a deeply complex philosopher and politician who has a surprising amount to teach us about the nature of power government and when being moral can do far more harm than good but why should we listen to this guy and who even is he these are excellent questions and so let's take a brief look at what has made Makia

a household name in political philosophy and the experiences which shaped his ideas but if you're concerned about how politics and power affect your newsfeed then I recommend today's very kind sponsor ground news ground news is a website and app that gathers related articles from thousands of sources around the world in one place so you can compare how different Outlets cover the same story each story comes with a clear breakdown of the political bias factuality ownership and headlines of the reporting sources with ratings backed by Independent News monitoring organizations grounds news are very kindly offering anyone

who uses my link or scans my QR code 40% off their Vantage plan as a special deal so I highly encourage you to snap this up for instance let's see how the left and right-wing Publications differed on the recent reports that the US economy grew by an annual rate of 2.33% in the last quarter of 2024 while the right was enthusiastic emphasizing how consumer spending had risen considerably leftwing sources were much less optimistic suggesting growth is likely to slow in the first quarter of 2025 I especially like the blind spot feed which highlights stories that

are disproportionately covered by the left or the right this field helps readers step into the other sides news reality and understand the different narratives that can shape their beliefs such as leftwing news sources missing the accusations that the Chicago mayor has mishandled gits or right-wing sources not covering the Fallout from Trump's temporary freeze of a large amount of public spending I don't have a lot of time to keep up with the news and certainly not to examine every article I read for bias so ground news is fantastic for giving me an idea of the differences

in reporting on different stories so that I can get a variety of views rather than just remaining stuck in my echo chamber ground news is very kindly giving my viewers 40% off their unlimited access Vantage plan so please do check it out I think ground news is doing very important work and I'm very happy to have them as sponsor anyway back to the video One makavelli a political life Nicolo de Bernardo de mavelli born in 1469 in Florence Italy was a man of many talents he was at times a playright a diplomat a historian and

a lover of the ancient world he is also one of the most influential political thinkers of all time given such a rich life I can't possibly cover it all here so give a sort of potted biography as is relevant to the works we'll be looking at today the makavelli family was an old one originating in joli just outside of Florence Ma's parents were not extraordinarily wealthy and went through periods of serious financial hardship nonetheless his father Bernardo was an Avid Reader displaying particular enthusiasm for ancient Greek and Roman works like that of Cicero and Aristotle

a trait that he would come to share with his son Bernardo in insisted on providing Nicolo with an intensive education schooling him in Latin and the classics as befitted an Italian gentleman Nicolo read the ancient Roman historian Titus Livy's History of Rome in his early years and mavi's discourses on Livy would later become one of his most important works during his education Nicolo was also exposed to the much harsher elements of human nature as one of his teachers Paulo sassy abused the young Nicolo along with with many of his other students due to some very

complicated political Shenanigans involving a priest briefly Taking Over Florence and then being executed for it mavelli ended up appointed the second Chancellor to the Council of war and diplomacy in 1498 this was his big break and it catapulted him to a prominent position in the Florentine State over the course of the next few years he would get a thorough instruction in matters of government he would oversee military operations become intimately involved in state bureaucracy and even serve as a diplomat to the kingdom of France this experience in Hands-On ruling would inform much of his later

works he saw periods of political chaos success in war and the best and worst of government advisers it was also here he formed his famous opinion that you should either crush your enemies completely ensuring that they never rise to bother you again or invite them into the fold and make them your friends but never choose the middle path and let them remain a threat during his time in government he witnessed how brutal statesmanship can sometimes really pay off he observed the military and political career of one chz bourger who had a string of Victories at

his back and seemed poised to become the Caesar of Renaissance Italy one of mavi's first political works is directly about bourger and his success in one of his campaigns but he also saw bourger fall from Power partly because of his own character flaws mavi's observations of bourger are thought to have heavily influenced his Infamous work the prince which gave advice to Absolute rulers on how they should run their states and maintain their power it was also in his service to the Florentine Republic that he came to love and admire Republican governance this would remain a

passion of mavell and he served his Republic faithfully and Loy his deep respect for republicanism would Inspire the discourses of Livy which is in my opinion his greatest book this was an analysis of how republics rise fall and maintain their influence as well as the many potential advantages they have over more authoritarian States it drew upon the history of Rome as well as many other nations to demonstrate how republics truly could hold their own against the mighty kingdoms of Europe If Only They were organized correctly ly and had skilled leaders at their help this work

would later go on to influence enlightenment philosophers like rouso through this it had a hand in the real world rise of the European republics and has arguably shaped how many governments in the west operate today albeit in a pretty roundabout way he was one of the first thinkers in early modern Europe to defend republics not just on some moral basis but because they have the potential to work much more efficiently and effectively than autocratic States however this success was not to last the old rulers of Florence the medich family managed to seize control of the

city again in 1512 to 1513 marking an end to the Republic and to mavi's political career he was captured tortured and exiled from the city and it was in Exile that he wrote his most famous works including the prince the discourses and the Art of War which was a detailed study in to how to win Wars or other armed conflicts he openly bemoaned his fate hating that he could no longer take part in his beloved Florence and that it had fallen from a hopeful Republic to a principality once more nonetheless he also hoped to worm

his way back into politics and so wrote The Prince addressed directly to the new ruler Lorenzo dedich to ingratiate himself with this regime however it would be many many years before he found any luck there eventually in 1520 or thereabouts he was commissioned to write a history of Florence by the medich which he completed over the course of a few years we see makaveli's practical nature here on the one hand he was no fan of medich rule but on the other he needed to paint them in a somewhat favorable light if he were to ever

find favor in his home state again his advice was also occasionally sought out by medich family members during this period because of his renowned expertise in statecraft admirably he often stuck to his guns in these sessions and recommended that they simply restore the Old Republic these efforts to ingratiate himself with the medich did pay off a little bit and in 1526 he was given an official position in Florence overseeing some of the city's defenses however this was shortlived the medich were once again overthrown and since mavelli had found small inroad with them he was denied

a post in the new Republic and sadly he died the following month this new Florentine Republic also did not last long and the Holy Roman Emperor Charles I would restore the michis to rule just a few years later mavelli lived an incredibly varied existence he saw the highs and lows of political power touched upon every aspect of government from foreign affairs to domestic matters to military strategy and yet he also died with his key Ambitions for a mighty Florentine Republic and a unified Italy far from fulfilled the circumstances of mavi's writings raise an important difficulty

when studying him with the exception of the discourses on Livy his Major Works tended to have highly mixed motivations which make it difficult to assess just how much they reflect his private personal views the prince was partly a bid to return to Florence political life under the medich while the history of Florence was directly commissioned by that same family and although it's clear that makavelli attempts to remain intellectually honest it is also primarily a historical work and is not as outwardly argumentative as the prince or the discourses The Art of War is also much more

concerned with the minui of military planning than his other works and it has far fewer broader ideas about politics thus When comparing the different sources in this video I will what makavelli says in the discourses higher than any of his other works I'll also be drawing extensively from the prince especially when it's consistent with the advice he gives elsewhere I'll be using the history of Florence and The Art of War a bit more sparingly just because they're less explicitly relevant to his philosophical views I wanted to open with this section on mavi's life because I

think it demonstrates two very important points firstly mavelli is not an armchair theorist his ideas are based on his many years of experience in government as well as his extensive study of other political theorists and the histories of States like Rome Sparta France and of course his home City of Florence and secondly his life contextualizes some of his more vicious pragmatism having seen City States including his own rise fall be conquered and be liberated in his lifetime this understandably colors his views on the world maavi does not just provide us with political Theory but political

Theory shaped by the most extreme and desperate of circumstances in such a brutal situation he truly thought you could not ignore what works and you could not argue with results it is high stakes philosophy the best kind of philosophy and with all of this out of the way I want to begin with mavi's views on human nature because I think it provides the basis for much of his other thinking and it is eminently practical for us considering that we too are inescapably human two human nature a story in two parts since the dawn of civilization

we have been asking what are humans like on the face of it this is such a wonderfully strange question because we all have firsthand experience of what it's like to be a human so wouldn't we already know of course the implicit framing of this question is normally what are other people like or how can I expect the average human to behave particularly with regards to me questions like this have been understandably criticized as pigeon holding what it means to be a person there is so much Rich variety between individual people that to give a complete

theory of what everyone is like seems extremely ambitious critiques like this have only intensified in recent years as landmarked psychological studies just fail to be replicated and considering the time period in which he lived mavelli had an incredibly nuanced idea of human nature and human motivation that balances the needs of a political leader with recognizing how extraordinarily different people can be on the one hand mavelli shies away from creating a unified universal view on human nature this is evident both at the individual level and between societies in The Prince and the discourses on Livy he

talks about the veryy temperaments between leaders for example he draws a distinction between warlike rulers like Romulus the founder of Rome and more administratively skilled leaders like his successor Numa rather than devoting himself to martial skill or territorial expansion Numa focused on solidifying matters at home he established the Roman State religion and instructed the populace in vital ways makavelli also Al notes the important differences between both peoples and their cultures for instance he speaks very highly of early ancient Roman culture because he saw it as instilling virtue in its populace on the whole he thought

the average man in the early to mid ancient Roman period was reasonably Brave had a good sense of civic duty and was willing to sacrifice some measure of personal benefit for the good of their community on the other hand he is much more cynical about the people of Western Europe in his own time who he saw to basically be self-interested and unwise of course this may just be the benefit of distance he never had to actually see real ancient Romans behave in Petty vain or selfish ways so it's much easier to romanticize them but his

broader Point still stands there are huge differences between peoples and so there is no way to definitively and finally say what mankind is like interestingly he is also clear that more virtuous people are not the result of some innate Advantage they had but rather comes from the education given to them by the state this is sometimes formal education but more often than not is just the values that their culture promotes he is not imagining early Rome as some perfect State filled with superhumans and in fact he cautions against this very thing instead he thinks that

they were products of their environment and that if any ruler today wanted to replicate Rome's success they ought to devote immen M effort into educating their populace not just in material facts but also in virtues so far you'll notice that there's surprisingly little of our classic picture of maiai the idea that people can truly become more virtuous is not in keep keeping with the popular perception of this Florentine thinker as dastardly deceptive and brutally self-centered a lot of this is just because the mackelli we have in popular culture is an absolute caricature of what the

man actually thought but it's also worth noting mavi's more optimistic ideas about human nature and human potential contrast pretty heavily with how he thought that any real world political strategist should view people in practice towards the beginning of the discourses makavelli bemon one crucial human propensity that Thorns the side of almost any leader and that is our ambition in makaveli's view almost everyone desires more than they have and if left unchecked this personal ambition will bring ruin to any state no matter how initially prosperous or blessed by Fortune it happens to be he is not

the only person to make this observation Arthur schopenhauer used to talk about how our desires are unquenchable because as soon as we achieve one another will surely rise to take its place hell the very first story in the Book of Genesis is about humans Desiring more than they have and Greco Roman mythology is chock full of cautionary tales about excessive ambition the destructive force of human avarice is very well known but makavelli considers in detail how this should affect the running of a state although he does recognize that people can be made more virtuous and

that this in and of itself can be a check on ambition makavelli also consistently advises that the state should be set up as if almost all people are unavoidably avaricious greedy and power hungry the reasoning for this is pretty simple while education can affect people's disposition and their behavior there will always be some people that it just doesn't work for there will always be some citizens in a state who will stop at nothing to Achieve Personal Glory no matter the cost this is not necessarily a bad thing either great leaders soldiers and governors are often

ambitious people though makavelli does think that the best of them also recognize limits on their own ambition however without proper enforced constraints even a few motivated citizens can bring down a whole society this is one way republics can collapse into tyrannies for example he thought the unchecked ambition of Julius Caesar led to the downfall of the Roman Republic and so the degeneration of a free Society into an unfree one thus mavelli thinks a ruler should act as if their citizenry have little to no natural checks on their ambition this will sometimes lead to behavior that

seems unfair or out of balance for example an extremely successful military commander might be reassigned to a relatively obscure post so that any chance they would seize control of the state in a military coup is thwarted of course this does mean that from time to time a very able General who genuinely does not have designs on becoming a dictator will be mistreated but mavelli thinks this is the lesser of two evils when the stakes are so high it is better to meet out a small Injustice to an innocent party than allow a guilty one to

run rough shod over an entire nation and put a pin on this idea of the lesser of two evils because it's going to become a bit of a theme in the video I wanted to start here with this seemingly bated view on human nature as I think it's a good example of an overall trend in machi's writing it can sometimes be helpful to think of mavelli as switching between two modes almost as if he makes observations about two separate worlds at one level there is reality as it exists with all its messy complexity at points

in his work he outright emphasizes this complexity saying that a skilled leader should disregard his rules if they have a strong enough contextual reason for doing so but there is also the world of political action where there is not always enough time to make these complicated distinctions and where decisions often need to be made suddenly and this is where his general rules and advice come into play although makavelli recognizes that not everyone has unlimited ambition since he specifically Praises rulers who manage to temper theirs he thinks you will get a lot further by treating people

as if they have unlimited ambition than as if they do not I think this distinction is often made implicitly in mavi's works at one level there is the world and then there is something else let's call it political reality this is the set of practical assumptions and axioms a skilled ruler often has to take as red to ensure their chances of survival and success it's a bit like how a lot of Engineers will set pi as equal to three in much of their work because the difference between 3 and 3.14 and 3.1415926535 is just Irrelevant

for what they're designing sometimes when makavelli appears overly pessimistic about the world or about ity he is talking at this level of political reality for instance as we shall see while he prefers republics to principalities he does not shy away from the way a prince must behave if they are to be successful and Safeguard their state and while he thinks that a people can become better with education it is still best to assume the worst when crafting laws and writing constitutions for every Cincinatti who resigned his emergency absolute Powers as soon as he had dealt

with the Cris is in front of him there is a Caesar who was all too eager to make himself dictator for life when the opportunity arose but this is just the start while I think that makaveli's view on human behavior forms the foundation for the rest of his philosophy the devil as is so often is in the details and nowhere is this more evident than the way he views virtue three virtuous man incompetent ruler what would you say makes a good person of course this question has occupied philosophers for thousands of years but people also

tend to settle on a few Key Properties we tend to think that a good person is kind generous compassionate honest and principled they are not hypocritical they always stick to their word and their heart is warm if people thought someone like this was running for political office they would probably vote for them however makavelli is significantly more skeptical in his view what makes someone a good person can also make them an absolutely awful ruler and I think it's worth touching upon this point because it makes the rest of his philosophy a lot more understandable as

pointed out by Erica Benner in her book mavi's ethics it is too hasty to call mavelli an aoral political schema with no respect for the common good or for Notions of virtue or Morality In much of his writings he largely criticized izes acts he sees as harming the people of a city and Praises those which help them if he was merely concerned about the self-interest of rulers then this doesn't make any sense for example in his history of Florence he is very critical of Kimo deichi for enriching himself and his own power at the cost

of destabilizing the city and creating partisan divisions that were not nearly as extreme before his Ascent this course of action was undeniably good for kmo but it was bad for Florence and so mavelli is not a fat in my view and it is only my opinion mavi's ethical system is ultimately grounded on the consequences borne by the citizens of a state and a ruler has a duty to those citizens a good ruler is not one who benefits themselves but one who benefits their people even in his most stereotypically Machiavellian book The Prince he still sticks

to this reasoning while also suggesting that it's in the prince's own best interest to benefit their people for for example in one passage he says the following the man who becomes king against the will of the majority and with the support of the wealthy Nobles must make it an absolute priority to win over the affections of the Common People this will be easy if he takes them under his protection and in the discourses he makes very similar statements where he Praises republics for safeguarding the freedom of their citizens stating that the wishes of Ordinary People

people are far more noble than those of princes or Kings because they tend to desire their own Freedom rather than to dominate others working in the background is the implicit assumption that the good of the people in a citystate is the ultimate end goal but then why has makavelli got this reputation for enabling tyrants and praising dictators well it is partly because he thinks that a good ruler and a good person require very different skills and that we ignore this at our own Peril for example in the prince he advises that a budding Prince must

sometimes be extremely Cru in order to both maintain their position and be a skillful and orderly ruler this goes against a principal tenant of our intuitive morality that compassion and kindness are unalloyed Goods but mavelli disagrees this may be true in a private citizen but a ruler doesn't just have to worry about themselves they have a duty of care to their people in one Infamous section of the prince entitled cruelty and compassion whether it is better to be loved or feared melli says this a ruler mustn't worry about being labeled cruel when it's a question

of keeping his subjects loyal and unified he will prove more compassionate than the leader whose excessive compassion leads to public disorder he then outlines how this excessive compassion can easily tip over into an inability to maintain order and public Unity this is a disaster for a citystate as it will lead to their gradual weakening and eventually they'll probably be conquered by another state thus the seemingly good thing to do has dire consequences while the seemingly evil thing to do actually serves the people as pointed out by John whitcliffe mavelli uses the word Vu sometimes to

refer to straightforward moral good but also to skill in ruling and skill in battle to be a virtuous ruler for makavelli is often to be a skillful one who benefits the people of the state over and above any concern about one's personal conscience and it's worth noting this underlying concern for public good does also Place limits on the brutality a prince or other ruler can enact for instance mavelli heavily cautions against seizing the property of citizens as that is likely to se chaos and discontent he also suggests that ruler should avoid being hated at all

costs and this demands certain standards of ethical conduct from them not only is it in their best interests it is also in the interests of the state they are governing since their overthrow would invite a period of uncertainty where they may be conquered by another state or an outright Tyrant might seize control in the discourses he is even more critical of tyranical rulers often saying that they limit the prosperity of their society he argued that ath flourished far less when it was ruled by the Tyrant pisistratus than when it was a democracy and that rulers

who enrich themselves at the cost of their people hobble both themselves and their state in the long term so I think it's important to consider the seemingly immoral recommendations in the prints and the discourses in light of this General theme while both of these works sometimes do encourage a ruler or Republic to engage in dishonesty cruelty and barbarism this is not a senseless celebration of brutality but instead a reflection of mavi's judgment that such surface level immorality is sadly sometimes necessary for long-term prosperity and while I think that he does tend towards letting the ends

justify the means throughout his work he is also pretty skeptical about suspending General moral rules all the time He suggests that in private practice a ruler really ought to obey the laws of the land and the customs of whatever Society they rule over it is primarily when it comes to matters of states and specifically when the good of the general populace is in the balance that makavelli recommends these seemingly indefensible actions and I think we can imagine the kind of person mavelli is implicitly critiquing here it is the sort of leader who is concerned mainly

with the color of their soul and their personal moral code over that of public benefit in modern politics I've seen people level similar criticism at those who refuse to vote strategically in elections preferring to favor a candidate which more closely aligns with their values but has no chance of winning and as a result making it less likely for the candidate perceived as the lesser of two evils to Prevail and look there's that phrase again likewise a ruler who is themselves ruled by feelings of immediate compassion is not always good news the trouble with just being

motivated by compassion is that it is often shortterm and high localized imagine that you are the ruler of a city and a man has been brought before you found guilty of conspiring against the citizenry and of defrauding public funds he seems like a rather pitiful figure he is dirty and his clothes are torn from his stay at the Dungeons and he falls at your feet pleading for his life he says he has a family friends people that depend on him you would have to have a pretty Harden heart if that did not move you to

compassion a little bit I know it would certainly move me but for makavelli following a compassionate Instinct here is only a short-term good it may feel fantastic to have done a kind turn and no doubt it will help you sleep more easily but it also sends the message that conspiring against the state and defrauding the public treasury is something that you will tolerate given that there will be at least a few people of outsized ambition in your city they are then more likely to use this route to enrich and Empower themselves at the cost of

everyone else what seems like compassion is revealed to just be unwise and as doing more people more harm in the long run so while I have almost certainly entitled this video something like why good people make terrible rulers I would probably say maia's views are closer to good people make terrible rulers when they Place their own short-term moral satisfaction over the needs of the state endangering their people as a result and ultimately showing more selfishness than the ruler who enacts temporary cruelty to secure long-term benefit for themselves and their citizens but you know that doesn't

fit in the title box however next I want to move on to particular instances of maia's Highly controversial advice starting with his notorious comments around honesty and dishonesty if you want to help me make more videos like this then please consider becoming one of my wonderful backers on patreon the link is in the description four appearance reality and PR just as most people want a virtuous leader most people also want an honest one this makes an awful lot of sense and it's a sentiment that I definitely share after all people want to know what their

leader is up to what the genuine state of their society is and that promises will be kept as far as human possible and in some ways mavelli does sympathize with this idea but he is also very clear that public appearance is often just as important as reality both for the individual ruler and for the state as a whole this point is made in detail by Kenneth menog who argues that for makavelli politics is just as much about interpretation as it is about facts that is given that each of us only has limited access to the

genuine facts of the situation it makes sense for a political leader to spin those facts to them and their people's advantage for example mavelli Praises a particular Roman consul papirius for turning a perceived bad Omen to his Advantage the upcoming battle papirus was about to fight looked like it was a certain victory for the Romans yet one of their superstitions was that if a particular chicken did not eat before the battle then Fortune was not with them and as it happens the chicken did not eat that fateful day the leader of the chicken men as

mlli calls them lied and told the conso that the chickens did eat but some of the other chicken men spread rumors of the true outcome of the omen among the troops which just lowered morale so the console came up with an ingenious solution to this public relations nightmare he said that from his end the Omens looked good and that if he was lied to about the chicken then this would surely fall on the head of the chief chicken man and then he proceeded to place all of the chicken men on the front lines when the

Chief chicker died in battle the consul declared that if this was a liar who had been killed then by that death their army would have won back the favor of the Gods as a result morale was restored and crisis was averted through a really quite clever scheme papirius ensured that whatever outcome happened he would come out on top if the chicken man survived then the soldiers would believe the lie that the Omens were in their favor and they would fight on if the chicken man were killed papirius could give them this new story and they

would also believe that the gods were on their side either way he guarantees his success in some ways this is egregious dishonesty it shows a total disregard for the truth it is genius level bullshitting but it also won the Romans the battle for makavelli this art of manipulating perceptions is invaluable in military strategy and not just when it comes to deceiving your opponents if your forces are even remotely equal to your adversaries makavelli thinks the outcome of battle will often be dictated by whoever's men fight harder and keep fighting for longer and this in turn

is often determined by morale and perception he condemns a different Roman Commander for throwing some other bad Omen given chickens into to the Sea as this gave the impression of angering the Gods even further the actual orices are just immaterial to him the important thing is that they are framed in the appropriate way as to maximize the chances of Victory if he were ever questioned about the dishonesty of this I imagine his rough response would be look do you want to win the battle or not which to be fair is not an unpersuasive argument when

you are staring down a hostile Force we can also see this theme in how mavelli treats religion mavi's personal religious views are the matter of some debate with some scholar seeing him as an unconventional Christian and some seeing him as an outright anti-christian thinker but in his Works he is more often interested in religion as a cultural phenomenon than as a metaphysical or theological one for example in a way that prefigures n's own critique mavelli is concerned that Christianity teaches people to be too passive and contemplative rather than decisive strong and active if you want

a good book comparing and contrasting n with mavelli then Don dbsk's nich's Machiavellian politics is a great source however unlike nure melli is no individualist and is largely interested in the ways religion can encourage people to set aside their temporary personal Ambitions and bind themselves together as one unity in a citizen state this is something ner with his arch individualism and philosophical elitism would almost certainly despise for example mavelli Praises much of the Roman superstitious and religious system because of how it encouraged people even people who were individually powerful to work for the good of

the society as a whole He states that the second Roman King numer inculcated religion into the people of Rome to instill order and loyalty in the state as as well as to have Supreme respect for the concept of an oath so great was this cultural power that many men seemed more frightened of breaking a vow than they did losing their very lives mavelli states that when the carthaginian general Hannibal was rampaging through Italy and many Romans were thinking of fleeing the commander skipio revived Rome's chances by making these people swear Oaths not to abandon their

land in its hour of need and they took these Oaths so seriously that they did not and Rome recovered the piety of the Romans is not seen as good in and of itself but rather mavelli thinks it promotes the kind of values that helped Rome succeed as a nation whatever his views on Christianity mavelli definitely thought that the religions of ancient Rome were false but he viewed them as effective and in some ways he saw that as more important again we see that he is willing to tolerate dishonesty provided it is in service to the

state and its people this also holds for his recommendation that rulers should promote themselves and ensure that they are seen as generous powerful wise and just this perception is good for stability and the perceived strength of the nation by others it thus makes Invasion and public disorder much less likely by contrast makavelli unequivocally condemns the kinds of dishonesty that he thinks weaken a nation for example in the discourses he repeatedly stresses the importance of honest Council arguing that this is one of the potential strengths a republic has over a principality whereas with an absolute ruler

there is often the worry that you could be punished if your advice leads to some failure in a republic this is much less often the case provided that you don't insist on the advice in an extreme way and ignore others in the process in the prince he recommends that even an authoritarian leader must bear honest and harsh truths from his advisers they certainly should not punish the advisers for reporting failings or bringing them bad news since this would simply ensure that the leader is not alerted to problems in the states that they might need to

urgently attend to it's now a tropen fiction for the rulers of evil Empires to have their subordinates killed for bringing them some unfavorable report but maavi thinks this is setting them up for disaster so I'm terribly sorry Darth Vader you just wouldn't survive in Rena s Italy mavelli also prizes honesty in the judicial process where he thinks that the appearance of fairness is Paramount and it's pretty hard to fake real fairness in the courts in a way that people don't pick up on he argues that trying to bend the justice system to your personal will

as a ruler will be seen through by almost everyone almost immediately and this perception of unfairness WIll Stoke hatred of you among your people and if people can't trust the justice system to restore balance to the moral scales they are much more likely to turn to vigilantism or personal blood vendettas which will in turn greatly destabilize your state interestingly contrary to his brutal reputation mavelli quite often counsels leniency when dealing with failures in general in order to keep people honest and focused on what really matters for example he strongly opposes punishing military commanders for failures

on the battlefield in his view there is often too much chance involved in who wins a battle to lay it squarely at the feet of the General in command what's worse if you begin punishing commanders for losing battles then the next Commander will have that in the back of their minds when they're fighting and this may affect their focus and subsequently their performance a very extreme historical example of this from Chinese history is the military Captain Chen Shen realizing that he would be late leading his Detachment of troops into position and aware that the punishment

for being late was death he figured he had nothing to lose he then led a rebellion that cost thousands of lives and though it was defeated it is thought by some Scholars to have led to the eventual fall of the kin Dynasty another example is Lee bang who actually did end the kin Dynasty when he accidentally let some prisoners Escape who were in his keep since the punishment for this was also death he also had nothing to lose and so revolted and eventually founded the Han Dynasty for II this was simply to be expected if

you punish people excessively for failure all you do is Stoke disorder and potentially compromise vital military decisionmaking while that last example is not explicitly to do with the dishonesty of rulers it illustrates an important point where clear-headed decision- making is needed people must be able to speak frankly and honestly and be given the chance to fail in their efforts makavelli thus subordinates both honesty and dishonesty to the service of the state and its people in a whole host of cases he does believe that honesty is the best policy but since it's also good for a

state stability to see their leadership in a positive light and for troops to have confidence in their potential for victory dishonesty also has its place for the smooth running of a society for makavelli sometimes you do need to bend the facts for the good of all but hang on on a second isn't mavelli known for promoting ruthless dictatorships why is he now talking about the strengths of a republic well despite what many people think mavelli valued Freedom extremely highly but his views on it are very complex and luckily that is just our next point five

Freedom security and stability if we accept that makavelli TR does desire what is good for the people of a state then why did he write the prince which does often seem like a manual for dictators to seize and maintain power well I would argue that two underlying aims dominate much of mavi's advice both in The Prince and elsewhere the first is maintaining security and the second is promoting freedom and self-governance wherever humanly possible the trouble is that these two are often intention especially in non-republican States for example if you give citizens too much leeway then

you lose the unity of the state and mavelli thinks that is inherently destabilizing but he also has pretty good pragmatic reasons for prizing freedom in society more generally for makavelli free citizens fight harder for their country are more invested in their government and support their own state by contrast he thinks that dictators are far more fragile since they provide a single position of near absolute power that people can compete over and also quite often earn the Justified resentment of their people but then what is all of that advice in The Prince about well I think

this is where mavi's pragmatic nature comes into play mavelli is strikingly UN idealist in the way he approaches reality he is determined to describe the world as he finds it rather than how he wishes it were and this practical Spirit extends to The Works themselves the prince is addressed directly to Lorenzo diero dadich who was at that time the ruler of Florence mavi's home state mavelli himself lived in Exile at that time and on the whole had a rather dim view of the medich family what with them having imprisoned and tortured him not long before

the prince thus serves partly as a bid to return to his City and as a way to ingratiate himself with these new rulers considering mavi's Republican leanings this has led some to speculate that the prince was actually an outright satire designed to mock the very family it was dedicated to and expose the evil ways that absolute rulers hold on to power personally I think this goes too far in the other direction plenty of the contents of the prince such as the advice on citizen armies on being decisive in punishing dissidents and in earning the respect

of the people are mirrored in the discourses which is definitely not satire for me I interpret the prince as making the best of a bad situation that is is if you do insist on being an absolute ruler here's how you don't make a complete pig's ear of it and bring Calamity on both yourself and the unfortunate people you govern viewed this way the advice in the prince actually fits quite nicely with a lot of his other works we can even see mavelli attempting to fit ideas that are sympathetic to the common people being shoved in

between the advice helpful to despots for example he thinks that on the whole a prince ought to leave ordinary people's customs property and family alone for the most part as interfering with this will so discontent and weaken the prince's position despite its reputation most of the brutality in the prince is directed at scheming Nobles or powerful families rather than the Common People part of this is because common people by themselves are thought to pose little to no threat to a dictator or if they're unified mavelli simply thinks they're an overwhelming Force but I also suspect

that maia's underlying sympathies for the Common Man are also heavily involved some Scholars like John McCormick take this much further and argue that mavelli was a fundamentally Democratic or populist figure but I think this might go a bit far for me mavi's Arguments for a government which involves Ordinary People are often practical and nowhere is this more evident than in his treatment of State security and stability throughout mavi's works the stability of the state is never far from his mind considering the time period this makes perfect sense Renaissance Italy was a hodgepodge of competing city

states who often invaded and outright conquered one another there is every chance that should the stability of a state waiver that state would cease to exist in a pretty short time period this concern with stability is behind a lot of his more authoritarian ideas like that if you cannot be both loved and feared it is better to be feared than loved however he also thinks this is where republics have enormous potential because whereas principalities monarchies and despotisms have to worry intensely about internal strife republics have much less conflict between their citizens in the discourses makavelli

argues that without a carefully managed Republic there is a fundamental competition between the common people and the nobility broadly speaking this is because the ordinary people want to be left alone but the Nobles wish to expand their power and so attempt to at the people this is not necessarily because they are personally evil but because there are other Nobles attempting to dominate them and so they must be constantly increasing their own personal strengths in order that they aren't destroyed despite the fact that mlli himself Praises Sparta rather highly I actually think they're a very good

example of this internal conflict bringing instability the Spartan State relied on a large population of slaves called helots to work their land this allowed the Spartan citizens to focus on The Art of War something mavelli is a huge fan of as we will see in the next section however this also meant that when the Spartan armies were on Long campaigns the helots often revolted which in turn limited the capability of the Spartan forces in sides' history of the pelian war he talks about how the Spartan commanders were often very nervous to be away from home

too long lest these helots get Restless in mavi's own time he says that even the best monarchy around the kingdom of France struggled because of this internal strife the constant tension between the peasants and the Nobles meant that the people could not be allowed too much freedom because they might Revolt but this also meant that the French state had to keep a tight military grip on their own Nation this was both just an expense and also limited their ability to mobilize their forces should they need to and made them rely on mercenary armies and we'll

see why melli thinks that's an awful idea in the next section the problem is that concern about State security Now ran directly against the freedom of the citizens which created this intense class conflict essentially this kept the nation in a constant gentle war with itself and as Abraham Lincoln once said quoting the gospels A house divided against itself cannot stand as pointed out by Carrie nman and Tatiana Gomez republics ideally solve this issue by giving everyone a seat at the table of government mavelli carefully narrates how the Roman State came to have its different offices

a pair of executive consuls a senate made up of Nobles and the tribunes of the plebs to represent the common people in his mind this rescued Rome from the destructive kind of internal conflict because it ensured that each person felt like they were participating in the state this became a virtuous cycle since this also meant that the Nobles and the consoles could trust ordinary citizens not to rebel and as a result they could have more freedom at the same time the tribute kept watch on the excesses of the nobility at least that is the story

as mavelli tells it the goal is for all of the moving parts of the nation to be working together to achieve a definite aim of course this is not a sort of modern liberal democracy but instead balancing the interests of different aristocratic and non-aristocratic classes in the context of Renaissance Italy however it's also a far cry from dictatorship or tyranny mavelli ultim Ely does desire free government but he is not as concerned with the kind of freedoms that get a lot of Press today like freedom of speech or freedom to do what you want with

your property in fact he often indicates that powerful citizens should be kept under careful watch to ensure that they're not plotting rebellions or coups when he says free government we should probably think of it as something like a government where the citizens participate to a large degree now I don't want to overstate things here for example the large slave population of Rome gets very little mention in mavelli but on the whole it is a very interesting way of viewing governmental systems mavelli wants to maximize internal stability by safeguarding freedom and free participation in government effectively

he trusts that if people feel represented and invested in their state then they are much less likely to stir trouble this is all part of a general lesson in mavi's works if you want your state to succeed you would do best to align the state's interests with the peoples as we said mavelli thinks that if people identify with their states they will fight harder work harder and fiercely defend the country against foes because in each case they're not just fighting or working for some nebulous king or far off set of nobles but for their own

Freedom He suggests this is one reason why the Roman Republic was so militarily successful so we see that mavi's Arguments for republicanism are still eminently practical it is not that he thinks it is inherently good for people to participate in government if it was shown that monarchies are more effective after all and make better decisions I'm sure he would change his mind but he thinks that republics truly are the best form of State simply based on the results they can achieve and the internal security they can generate and speaking of security violence is absolutely crucial

to understanding mlli and his ideas so I think it is high time we take a look at it six the need to be dangerous a phrase I sometimes see battered around the internet is it is better to be a warrior in a garden than a gardener in a war it is intermittently attributed to Bruce Lee the 17th century Japanese swordsman mamoto moushi and just an old proverb sometimes said to be from China and sometimes Japan I know this is a side tangent but I spent so long trying to track down the origin of this quote

and I just can't find a definitive answer anywhere but wherever this little aphorism comes from its message is pretty clear it is much better to be prepared for conflict and disorder and for this to have turned out to be unnecessary than to be unprepared only for violence to then come knocking at your door There is almost certainly something in this but makavelli actually goes one step further he thinks it is the duty of every state to be constantly ready for violence since this not only means they will come out on top if War does break

out but also they are less likely to have to fight in the first place if they seem sufficiently dangerous this has given mavelli something of a warmongering reputation but I think things are far more complex than they first appear even those leaders makavelli does praise for their skills in other areas such as numer who he says is a gifted administrator and cultural leader he still criticized for their lack of skill in combat he even says that if Numa himself had not been succeeded by pompilus who was another warlike ruler just like Romulus then Rome would

have probably fallen on the other hand if a leader is sufficiently skilled in battle then mavelli thinks this can make up for a lot of other failings for example while mavelli condemns the Ancient King of Syracuse agathocles for being a criminal a tyrant and a brutal murderer he states that none of this caused a fall from Power since he was such a skilled military commander and even managed to win a number of Victories against Carthage which was a much larger State than Syracuse although mavelli says he's not to be admired he also thinks you just

can't argue with results it goes to show just how important being a dangerous military leader is that it could make up for all of these other shortcomings he also Praises these small German states who managed to maintain their independence in the face of much greater forces by ensuring that their towns are well fortified and that their armies continually practice their military exercises the reason for this emphasis on Military skill is simple it is all well and good being the greatest domestic ruler in the world but that will count for very little when a more powerful

Army marches through your city Gates plops your head on a pike and brutalizes your citizens mavi's conception of geopolitics is incredibly dog eats dog he thus thinks that every state should prioritize their military forces no matter what their personal Ambitions for expansion happen to be because for makavelli sooner or later no matter how peaceful or isolationist your state is someone is going to knock on your door and demand something of you they might want access to certain natural resources or even request that you become their client state it would be lovely If Leaving everyone else

alone was enough to excuse yourself from foreign policy but makavelli thinks this is just naive if you have anything worth taking eventually someone will want to take it and so you will have to defend it and this is where military power is absolutely essential there is simply no substitute for it thus mavelli often recommends a state should pursue a subtle policy of expansion and aggression not because this is a good thing in itself but because the state must keep up with the power of the states around it he's not an outright imperialist but he does

think that if you want to remain unconquered you must be powerful enough to not be an easy target though this does not always require expansion for instance he thinks that Switzerland can rely on its fortifications and its geography to keep it secure it does not need to acquire any new territories and he also does advise expanding by diplomacy wherever possible as this is a lot less risky mavelli also desires a pretty aggressive form of foreign policy if conflict is looming He suggests that once you know war is coming you should enact it quickly and brutally

mobilizing all your forces and bringing it to a conclusion as swiftly as possible Wars are an expensive horrible business and makavelli wants them to be as short as they can be however he also thinks that war should not be delayed if it's going to happen anyway if you attack first you can seize the initiative and hopefully catch your enemy unprepared you also deny them the chance to build up their forces the ideal for makavelli is to be ready for all out War at any moment this will both mean that any War you engage in will

be brief and you will be likely to win it and also that others will think twice before attacking you he acknowledges that this will come at the cost of other things but he just thinks it is well worth it makavelli is also pretty skeptical of so-called Allies in War he saw them as fundamentally unreliable when the chips are down they have no reason to place your own interests over theirs and nor should they so if you're ever backed into a corner you can pretty much expect them to switch sides rather quickly this does not always

happen but it happens often enough that it means total Reliance on allies is just inadvisable what if a new leader wants to suddenly break off the alliance what if the Ally becomes closer with one of your enemies what if you are losing in battle and they switch sides it's nice to have allies sure but mavelli says you definitely shouldn't rely on them too much there is no substitute for having your own power and for the record mavelli also advises that you should break any alliances you have if they're going to bring your state to ruin

remember as a leader your first duty is to your people not to anyone else's or at least that is his view likewise makavelli deplored the Renaissance practice of relying on mercenary forces to fight your Wars for you not only was this incredibly expensive it was also placing the fate of your country in the hands of people pull just out for gold this isn't the mercenaries fault they are honest and explicit about this so makavelli is harshly critical of those who knowing this unavoidable fact depend largely on mercenary forces for their success this was pretty close

to his heart since Florence employed mercenary forces far too readily in their armies which according to Tim Parks were notorious for evaporating when things got tough instead mavelli highly recommend that states should form their own citizen armies that are well-funded well trained and well L this honestly comes across as a bit of a hobby horse because it comes up in almost every one of his Major Works you can almost play macavelli bingo with it you'll be reading about something unrelated and all of a sudden this issue of a citizen Army will pop up but despite

this it is incredibly Sound Advice mavelli points out that a citizen Army will be defending their homes not just fighting for a paycheck and if they live in a republic then they will hopefully identify and be invested in their own country again we see why mavelli is so enthusiastic about citizen participation in a state it means that they will fight harder for that state bringing them even more successes when it comes to victory in war mavelli presents two options on the one hand you can be incredibly magnanimous you can attempt to make your defeated foe

your friend and ensure that whoever controls the city is on your side in the future on the other you can destroy the leadership of the state entirely and ensure that they can never rise to threaten you again this is also how he thinks you should deal with enemies more generally either make them your friend and secure their support or make it so they will never have the chance to bite you back in the future the middle path where you punish your enemies just enough that they resent you but leave them with the ability to gather

their strength and punish you for it is to be avoided at all costs this idea is behind the rather cold-hearted recommendation to kill the ruling family of a state if you conquer them to ensure that there are none left for resistors to Rally around one historical example of someone making the middleway mistake is the terms given to Carthage by Rome at the end of the first Punic War they extracted wealth and resources from the defeated carthaginians but gave them enough autonomy to eventually recoup their power this culminated in Hannibal's famous campaign across Italy where he

killed hundreds of thousands of Roman troops and nearly brought Rome to its knees however the Romans did not repeat this mistake eventually destroying Carthage completely after the third Punic War and it was never a problem again makaveli's focus on war and violence is another thing that's earned him the devious reputation he enjoys today but again I think it's important to see this in context Ma does not Revel in violence for violence's sake he just thinks that war is sometimes inevitable and that when it happens it is better to commit to it wholeheartedly than to half

ask things and ensure that the conflict drags on for years of course this is just mavi's view and other military tacticians would no doubt disagree to use another example from the Punic Wars the Roman Consul Fabius deliberately dragged out the conflict with Hannibal knowing that he could not defeat him an open battle but that internal tensions in Hannibal forces would eventually weaken him though of course the Ultimate Death Blow to Hannibal was delivered in another way I largely want to note that unlike some others mavelli does not glorify military might as an end in itself

but rather as something leaders must have to ensure the security and prosperity of their Nation likewise his brutal advice for treating defeated foes was not because he loved the idea of executing enemies mercilessly but because he thought the alternative would lead to more conflicts and ultimately cost more lives the lesser of two evils can still look pretty ugly but next I want to turn to the main reason I think mavelli is seen as such a Dastardly and untrustworthy figure and what this can teach us about the function and potential value of principles seven princes principles

and prudence when we call something makavelian we don't just mean that it's evil take someone like Tyrion Lannister from Game of Thrones in both the TV show and the books he is often scheming manipulative and cunning but he's also not straightforwardly a bad guy his Superior political maneuvering even saves the city of King's Landing he is in some ways a classic mellian character displaying classic mellian Behavior even though we're still relu to call him Machiavellian because while it's not synonymous with evil it does tend to only get used with evil seeming characters but if you

ask me why people see mavi's style of Politics as evil I would say it comes down to his willingness to abandon absolute moral principles and remain pragmatic in his judgments even if that pragmatism is ultimately inservice to the greater good of the people this lack of lines in the sand that somebody just will not cross no matter the circumstances understandably makes people suspicious and nervous one thing mavelli emphasizes over and over again in his writings is the importance of contextual factors to decision-making even his own advice is only meant to give General guidelines and He

suggests that leaders should use their own practical wisdom and experience to overrule it when necessary for example while he does advise that war should not be delayed since the aggressor has an advantage they can sees the initiative he also states that there are important exceptions such as if you're in no position to currently wage war or if your Homeland is particularly well suited to defense if your city is on top of a mountain then it just makes no sense to pursue aggressive military strategy since you're incredibly hard to conquer in itself I don't think people

mind this we all know someone who sticks doggedly to how they've always done things long after it becomes unhelpful but people tend to get uncomfortable when this is extended to moral principles as well whenever mavelli recommends some ethical rule it always comes with a but attached honor alliances but only when they're helpful to you support another friendly state in a conflict but potentially with an eye to weaken them or make them dependent on you be a just ruler who follows the laws of the land but also do award onor honors to secure your power and

the power of the state be honest with the people since there can be wisdom in the general consensus of the masses but also do deceive them if you think it will make them better citizens while makavelli gives some pretty solid advice and often times it even coheres with intuitive morality ultimately he serves only one master what works and understandably people are pretty skeptical of this intensely pragmatic approach take the first leader of Republican Rome the fantastically named Lucius unius Brutus mavelli specifically Praises Brutus for executing his own Sons since they conspired against the new state

and he even publically went to watch their execution for a lot of people especially those in the ancient world this betrays a dearly held moral principle to value and respect your family and to be loyal towards them but MAV recognized that without this brutal punishment and the show of support by the new leader of the Republic the budding state would have probably fallen into chaos likewise we tend to prize the right to a fair trial so when mavelli recommends that defeated enemies should be put to death swiftly if they can't be made into allies it

goes against a principle that is very close to our hearts Mai might even sympathize with our concern given that he too broadly desires a fair and honest Jud IAL system but he would also argue there are exceptions to every Rule and if you allow these people to live for very long it will give them a chance to destabilize the state further in this way mavelli is fundamentally at odds with how we often conceive of politics today which is heavily influenced by ideas about individual rights and individual liberties we tend to think that someone's rights should

not be violated even in Desperate Times no matter what happens we don't want people detained indefinitely without trial or executed on the spot or to be deceived by our own governments but in principle mavelli thinks that all of these things are justifiable given the right circumstances this is a natural conclusion of his State relative consequentialism if it is in the best long-term interests of the state and its people to suspend a moral rule then that rule must be suspended nothing is sacred and if the situation is dire enough then every single ethical law can and

will be broken this idea very understandably makes people anxious despite maia's concern for balancing the different powers in a state this priority given to consequences can make people suspicious of what their government will do to them if suddenly some heinous action is seen as in the interests of the people after all this very excuse has been used by dictators and despots throughout the world and throughout history to justify horrendous actions that not only violated legal rights and protections but weren't even in the interests of the people anyway it also may make other states much more

nervous about becoming your ally if you have the choice between allying with someone who will have your back to The Bitter End and someone you know will only support you when they judge it is in their best interests then you would go with the more principled Ally almost every time of course makavelli would respond by saying that a leader ought to ensure that they are perceived as principled while secretly being this people serving pragmatist in the background as mavelli himself puts it while discussing leaders who break their promises the crowd is won over by appearances

and final results that is as long as you can appear like you are serving a set of moral rules and your decisions ultimately benefit the people as a whole then you will not be condemned for your ethical flexibility but praised for it but then this raises its own problems because this strategy might be all well and good if only the ruler or rulers know about it but as soon as it becomes clear that this is their strategy people will become suspicious again if people know that their leaders are striving for the appearance of principles rather

than principles themselves then they'll ask the very sensible question how do I know that you are really acting in the interests of the people this puts the leader in a bite they must behave in a Machiavellian way yet conceal that melanism from their people but this also creates a pretty significant internal tension in his philosophy if he wishes the citizens to freely participate in governments how can he have a wall of deception keeping the leaders of a state from being transparent with those citizens I think this is a genuine conundrum in mavi's works and one

that I have not found a definitive resolution to I also suspect that this is largely what rubs people up the wrong way when they're reading mlli even when the myths about him supporting despotism are dispelled and he is revealed to want Republican governance by an Engaged populace we are still suspicious of the recommendation to abandon principles whenever they become inconvenient because if our leaders have shown that they can do that skillfully and a when working in our interests who is to say that they cannot also do that when they are out for themselves all the

while pulling the wool over our eyes using the exact same tricks with which they have deceived our enemies I wanted to draw attention to this point because I think it represents both what many people find so appealing about makavelli but also what strikes some as deeply disturbing a leader who follows mavi's advice and is open about it may be pretty effective but they will also seem incredibly unpredictable and thus untrustworthy there is something freeing about being liberated from the constraints of moral rules and simply acting for the good of the people but many are understandably

skeptical about whether we can justify that core isn't the whole reason we have moral laws that we are not that skilled at judging when a principle ought to be broken for the greater good so we're just better off sticking to these prior Commandments I also think this serves as a nice Counterpoint to some of what we have already said about maavi when most people start to read mavelli they think he is a bastard then when some misconceptions are cleared up it is easy to go to The Other Extreme and start to build an idealistic picture

of him and what he believes in the past I've spoken about this phenomenon when it comes to Nature where people sometimes oscillate between believing in Monster nature and fluffy bunny nature all the while leading more moderate interpretations of him completely untouched in the same way we should beware of fluffy bunny mavelli just as we should avoid dictator mavelli and for our final section I want to emphasize this point what is mavi's True Legacy and how should we approach him when reading his work today eight mavelli in the Modern Age Nicolo mavelli has achieved a coveted

position among great thinkers he gets people excited there are not many philosophers people want to know this much about he seems dark mysterious and a guardian of forbidden knowledge his pragmatism goes against every moral lesson we have ever been taught and yet he claims it is for the greater good it is unsurprising people find this kind of thing appealing and alluring normally I end these longer videos by explaining why I think you should check out this particular book or thinker but mavelli does not require that sort of pitch so instead I wanted to look at

how to read him and what general lessons he can provide us today the first thing to bear in mind is that makavelli is always writing in the context of Renaissance Italy and he always has his own ends in sight sometimes those ends are personal like wanting to return to Florence and sometimes they are ideological like wanting to make a positive case for republicanism or do the history of his home country Justice then there are his overarching goals he wants to see Italy unified for example whereas mavi's recommendations sometimes do seem timeless it is important to

not just take him at his word and consider that occasionally circumstances might have changed for example in one notorious passage in The Art of War he predicts that Firearms just won't be all that important on the battlefield that may have been been true for him but I think it's fair to say that the situation has changed in the intervening 500 years mavelli is also remarkable in his refusal to systematize despite there being certain consistent through lines in his work he never sits down and defines a final system for how politics is to be done and

he probably would find this impossible it's just too variable in this way he does remind me of NE who also spurns systematic philosophy in favor of a series of observations some of which are connected but many of which just stand alone however given all these qualifications many of mavi's insights remain intensely relevant or interesting to us in the modern day whether we are in politics or not firstly mavelli is something of a practical pessimist that is he always recommends planning for the worst possible scenario he thinks that a leader should assume that everyone is ambitious

and selfish because if they don't they will be unprepared for the ones that are ambitious and selfish he thinks that a nation should always be ready for war because otherwise if War does come they will be stuffed he advises totally destroying defeated enemies because even if only a few are left to build up their power they may eventually destroy he wants a leader to be brutally pragmatic because if they're not it will put them at a disadvantage against those who are and sometimes it only takes a single crushing defeat to do away with a whole

state or even a whole Dynasty in some ways makavelli is a deeply hopeful thinker ambitious about what he believes humanity and governments could be but he also knows that thinking they are like this already is a Fool's game and will shortly be a dead Fool's game additionally mavelli asks us to confront uncomfortable truths about the world hey ensures we question whether our moral principles actually achieve what we claim they do and whether we should leave them aside occasionally to accomplish some greater good he prevents us from clinging to an ironclad morality as a way to

keep our own soul clean while we serve some greater evil in the long run as I have emphasized again and again makavelli is the master of picking the lesser of two evils and of committing short-term cruelty for long-term kindness mavelli was a republican but not a particularly idealistic one he wanted people to have a say in their own government but he also thought that republics would remain stable and prosperous by making their citizens more loyal and more united even if that meant lying to them he saw education as the way to achieve this and culture

and religion as the way to cement it in his view to change a a people you must change what they considered virtuous yet at the same time he thought a ruler ought to be aware enough to discard these virtues when they needed to this arguably mixes citizen rule with a certain paternalism but he thought that in theory this could get you all the decisiveness of an authoritarian government with all of the loyalty and reliability of a republican one this mixture of idealism and harsh realism is fascinating and it's certainly worth considering how we balance these

factors when we're crafting our own philosophy mavelli despised tyrannical rule because he thought it gave the worst of all worlds it made the state so divided that it became unstable and it made the citizenry miserable which would eventually cause it to collapse his critiques of tyrants sometimes seem unfamiliar because they attack the institution from a practical angle for maavi more important than tyrannies being immoral is the fact that they just don't work and this obsession with what works practically in the here and now pervades mavi's thought for him you can sit around writing all of

the treatises on virtue that you want but if you can't achieve and hold on to power you may as well burn them likewise you can be the morally perfect King but if this brings about the ruin of you and your people then what was the point mavi's advice is not so that evil people can wreak their horrid designs upon the world but so that those who truly have the people's best interest at heart can endure survive and prosper in a world of unscrupulous self-centered and avaricious foes it is to teach good rulers to be just

Wicked enough that they do not fall prey to the serpents of the world and know how to use the tricks of the evil against the evil for the benefit of their own citizens that last part is crucial because all of maia's Works display a deep concern with the people of a Nation he thinks we all have a duty to safeguard shelter and protect our societies and to work together for the good of all within those societies whenever he recommends that someone does something seemingly immoral it is almost always because he thinks it will serve their

people in the long term it is the end that everything else Works towards the ruler's job is to take on the necessary sins of government personally sacrificing even their conscience for the common good for makavelli a leader should treat their citizens like family both in the animalistic tribal sense of preferring their well-being to anyone else's but also in the more noble sense of putting them first in all decisions and protecting them at all costs so perhaps we ought to revise our definition of mellan rather than referring to a selfish untrustworthy aoral schema maybe it should

mean someone who is willing to give up anything even their personal morality if it will prevent the destruction of their community and promote the well-being of the people in their care mavelli does not have a universal ethical system that involves everyone in this way he is still very much in conflict with most modern moralities but there is nothing he holds in Greater contempt than a ruler simply out for themselves so let's not write off this Florentine politician as a mere teacher of evil but instead see him for what he is a unique thinker with unique

concerns who just does not play nicely with any form of modern e eics but also has much to teach us from his many years of hard study and dedicated Service as long as we keep a critical eye to where we may disagree with him but if you want a complete contrast to makaveli's views then check out this video to learn about dostoevsky's phenomenal novel The Idiot how one man's moral system brought destruction to those around him and whether it was all worth it I hope you enjoyed this video and have a wonderful day