Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
[ Music ]
>> Hello and welcome back to the video lecture series
for Philosophy 119, Ethical Leadership,
offered through the Pennsylvania State University.
I'm Dr. William Bien.
In today's session I'd like to talk a little bit
about the perception of Machiavelli's work;
particularly the notion that he's either ignorant of
or simply not interested in the moral or ethical dimension
of political leadership.
When we use the term Machiavellian
in ordinary everyday language, we normally mean it
as a criticism or insult implying that the person
so described is conniving, dishonest or at best a moral.
We think of people that are Machiavellian as willing
to do anything in order to obtain personal power
or into indulge their personal interests; but if we take a look
at Machiavelli's text we can see
that not only is he deeply interested
in the moral dimension of political action,
but that the course of action that he recommends
for the prince is not one of self-indulgence
or blind power seeking; but rather one that takes
as its primary goal the stability and well-being
of the state as a whole.
In a democratic society we have a tendency
to acquaint the public interest with a combined private interest
of all of the citizens of the state.
However, this isn't always the case.
The state as an organic totality is more
than simply to some of its parts.
To take an example, look at the community of our class.
It's in the private interest of everyone in the class
to receive an A at the end of the term.
We might, therefore, imagine that it's in the best interest
of the class as a whole for everyone to get an A;
but clearly this isn't the case.
If we put it to a vote, the majority
of the class would probably vote for everyone
to get the highest grade possible.
Because those that actually earn
that grade are generally in the minority.
However, I think it's reasonably clear that it's not
in the best interest of the class as a whole as a community,
for everyone to receive an A regardless of the work
that they do; this would defeat the fundamental purpose
of giving grades in the class.
There's a disconnect between the public interest of the class
as a whole and the combined private interest
of all of its members.
Machiavelli is very sensitive to this distinction
which has gotten lost to a certain extent
in the modern democratic age.
The prince is specifically charged with being the custodian
of the public interests; not the private interests of any group
within the state even the majority.
It's his or her job to insure the stability and wellbeing
of the state, not necessarily the majority of its citizens.
Perhaps more importantly,
his or her own job demands the sacrifice of his
or her own personal private interests.
For the prince to indulge private whims will almost
necessarily have a detrimental impact
on the stability of the state.
Therefore if the prince does this, he or she fails in his
or her responsibility as a leader or a ruler.
One could even say that in Machiavelli's work the prince is
required to sacrifice the one thing
that a private citizen always has the liberty
of preserving-- his immortal soul.
Remember that Machiavelli considers himself
to be a good Catholic, a good child of the church
and he is deeply imbued with the values and theology
of the Church of Rome.
Well a private citizen can, through faith and good works,
earn his way to Heaven.
The prince is called upon to sacrifice his private virtue
in order to secure the public good;
whereas the private citizen always has the choice
to not be a murderer, a liar or a thief,
the prince is called upon to use all of the weapons at his
or her disposal in order to insure the good of the state
which is the prince's primary responsibility.
If the prince doesn't make use of any
of these seemingly evil things, then he or she fails as a ruler.
There's a real difference in Machiavelli
between what it means to be a good person;
that is to say a good private citizen,
and to be a good prince or a good leader.
Thus, we can see that Machiavelli far
from being uninterested in or ignorant
of moral virtue instead suggests somewhat suddenly
that what it means to be a virtuous person is different
from what it means to be a virtuous prince.
And while we may generally see the prince as liberated
from the bonds of morality that apply to private citizens,
he or she is not liberated from the consequence
of immoral action and will have to pay the price for eternity.
When we look at Machiavelli's work from this perspective,
a new way of thinking about political action emerges.
We should always keep in the back of our minds the idea
that the public and private spheres are radically divided
even if the border between them is never quite clear.
By keeping this distinction between public and private
in mind, we can gain a profound insight into what we mean
when we talk about virtue in a public or leadership context.