Discussion and Essay
david676
Discussion.docxIn this Module we will discuss the political theorist Machiavelli.
Machiavelli is quite often referred to as a theorist who advocated "the ends justifies the means." In advocating for the sustained power of The Prince, he is certainly amoral in his approach to politics. He argues that the Prince must constantly battle the forces of fortune (or misfortune) to maintain their honor and glory through skill, which he calls virtue. He does contend that a Prince will have to at times engage in behaviors traditionally deemed immoral, to perpetuate his power. This is still deemed virtue. Quite often he says, behaviors on the surface that are deemed immoral will lead to safety and security, while those deemed to be moral will lead to a path of destruction in the long term. For example, lying and conspiring, or even the use of force and brutality at times, might be needed to protect the Republic and, most importantly, the Prince himself. However that does not mean he advocates for the ends justifies the means. In The Prince he discusses Agathocles of Syracuse who achieved power by killing all of his political enemies, all the rich, and slaughtering all the members of the Senate. Machiavelli argues that this type of brutality and wickedness may achieve power but never the respect of the citizenry, or the attainment of honor and glory for the Prince.
On a side note: If any of you watch the show House of Cards on Netflix, Frank Underwood is the true embodiment and manifestation of Machiavelli's Prince in a contemporary art form.
Required Texts: Western Political Thought from Plato to Marx
Jha, Shefali
Pearson (2010)
ISBN: 978-81-317-2727-8
Discussion:
Is Machiavelli correct, should leaders be permitted lie to the public to safeguard it from external threats and internal discord, and to protect themselves?
Please provide a two paragraph answer and, as always, respond to at least two other students.
Student 1: Yes, I agree that leaders should be permitted to lie to the public to safeguard from external threats, and possible internal discord. I believe it is not clear to what degree Machiavelli means when he says to protect the leaders themselves though. I would hope he would mean it is acceptable for a leader to be deceitful if the land is under attack and they lie about their whereabouts (in that moment) to protect the leader from being attacked directly. However, because the statement is so general leaders seem to use this 'lying to protect the people' as their justifications when they are lying to the people while they are hiding actions and decisions they are making out their own personal selfish greed.
When we give these leaders the power to protect us we expect it to do done with the intent to protect our constitutional rights, and overall safety, and we expect them to do so morally and with the greater good for the greater number of people in mind when doing so. We see to often leaders that do not display moral characteristics, and lie to the people for their own personal growth, i.e. "The War on Drugs" was not an act to protect the people it was a platform to stand on to enact fear over the public and the idea that by voting for Regan he would save the country from this drug epidemic when in reality the only thing it did was redesigned and legalized discrimination.
I understand on my level as a parent having to lie or bend the truth to my child about things she is not equipped to understand yet. She often gets a age appropriate (security clearance) answer depending on the question, I don't do this to mislead my child, but to protect her from things she doesn't need to know and things she is not ready to understand, that is in theory what I would expect out of my leader, not to lie to change the narrative of reality.
Student 2: Machiavelli is correct with his statement that leaders should be permitted to lie to the public; specifically when it is in regards to public safety and prevention of chaos. The truth is that most times, people of the public would not handle nation security news very well. Human nature is to flea from danger, and therefore run away and wreak havoc on any obstacle in their way. Individuals of the public have shown, on more than one occasion, that they are unable to receive this type of news well. People panic, people cry, people get angry; they even take-on the feelings of those around them (so as to not feel alone). Sometimes lies are needed to keep the peace, and in some cases they do.
Anytime the safety of the nation is at stake, it is perfectly alright for the public to be lied to. It conserves the minds of those who are unable to handle news, and prevents mayhem from setting in. Far too often people can also misinterpret the situation, and are left with little-to-no actual basis for their feelings. This can cause false information to spread; leading to an even larger uproar. People always want to know what is going on, but in reality, when it comes to actually processing certain information, others cannot handle it. This makes it tricky to be sure that what we want is really what we need!
