Do you agree with Machiavelli’s View of Politics Being Amoral?

Or do you
Disagree?”
Michelle Lacerna, HUMSS 12 A, January 31, 2019

To formally introduce my stand, it is fit to first define the terms “politics” and “amorality”
for they are usually misunderstood and taken out of context. The term “politics” refers to the
activities, actions and policies that are used to gain or hold power in a government or to influence
a government.1 Basically, it is understood to be the process of decision-making in an attempt to
reach collective goals with use of influence and power. The second term is mistakenly thought to
be synonymous with “immorality” when both have two very distinct meanings. “Amorality” or
“amoral” is a term used to describe being neither moral nor immoral2. The boundaries of morality
or immorality does not play any role in this case. There are no standards to follow or break so
judgement would be purely based on the necessity and outcome of the act done. Basically blurring
the lines of rightness or wrongness of one’s actions since being amoral does not concern itself with
this concept.
A political leader or politicians are persons who are those who involve themselves in
politics and governing a group or nation. Typically, the word already connotes someone corrupt
and self-serving leaders. However, there were many political leaders in history that made them
famous and stamped forever in history. Few of them were Franklin Roosevelt, who led the US to
supremacy after the “The Great Depression” and attack on Pearl Harbor; Napoleon Bonaparte, a
French leader that led the success of the Revolutionary wars and instituted the Napoleonic Code
that became part of today’s government; Adolf Hitler, though known to be a cruel dictator, he has
been known to be very intelligent in both military and state affairs, and had a fervent nationalism
that gained support from the Germans. 3
In the Philippine setting, one most controversial politician would be the late President
Ferdinand Marcos who was known for his declaration of Martial Law and reign for over twenty
years. He became the first Philippine president to serve two terms and had established several
infrastructures, industries and agriculture but was later convicted for crimes of embezzlement and
other corrupt actions.4
The reason that I cited those political leaders is that they somehow grasped the idea of
Machiavelli on the notion that politics is amoral. To maintain power and their leadership, these
historical figures used immoral measures and disregarding the wrongness or rightness of their
actions as they view them to be “just”. Machiavelli turned away from the Humanist and religious
ideals implemented in the Florentine political system and insisted that force and military

1
https://ivn.us/2012/01/31/best-politics-definition/
2
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/amoral.
3
Top 10 Best Politicians Ever Lived. (n.d.). Retrieved January 31, 2019, from https://muchneeded.com/best-
politicians-ever-lived/
4
Editors of the Encyclopedia of Britannica, ed. "Ferdinand Marcos Ruler of Philippines."
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Ferdinand-E-Marcos.
approaches would be needed to build a strong political foundation.5 Just as the leaders did, they
used tactical methods that involved warfare to prove a point and remain power. The Machiavellian
thought is not advocating evil by any means but is promoting the reality of the political sphere that
not everything should be done within the boundaries of morality and immorality.
With, I hereby agree on Machiavelli’s view on politics being amoral and should be so. It
is necessary in maintaining a responsible political leadership but has to be done still in moderation.
I do not claim that all government would need to use warfare tactics or immoral means of achieving
goals in a daily basis but on occasions where it is needed.
In my own personal opinion, if a politics would be bound to moral standards, taking on
heavy matter that would involve breaking these moral standards would label the government to be
“immoral” and possibly lose public support. With the political arena being a “battleground” with
actors always wanting to usurp the other, using moral means would probably cause a nation’s
downfall.
According to Machiavelli, a doer must uphold the virtues, not in the sense of morality, but
traits that include ‘greatness, spiritedness, gravity and strength.’6 If a leader is to perform an act
of virtue, regardless of means as long as it yields favourable ends, then he is remarked to be great
and just. If no means or ways are seen that would able a more diplomatic approach, necessary
actions done in virtue would be necessary, as long as excess killings or catastrophe are avoided.
One possible example would be Ferdinand Marcos for his reign has been the definition of
an amoral government by Machiavelli. He has subdued the forces threatening his power and
influence by means of using military force. However, he has done so many even before his
presidency such as passing significant bills that was included into the Republic statute books. 7 He
reigned with virtue, fortune and statecraft but had fallen due to the boundary that Machiavelli had
set on his philosophy regarding the “property and women of his subjects.” Any action done out of
strict necessity is considered to be just but to overstep would not be considered part of the
Machiavellian definition. Due to transgressing this boundary, the state revolted and Marcos lost
his power as emphasized by Machiavelli.
Self-indulgent is the root cause of corruption but self-preservation is entirely a different
matter, as emphasized by Machiavelli. Self-indulgent entails selfish desires for one’s self while
self-preservation is selfishness to preserve one’s existence which is not at all selfish but instinctual.
A political leader in self-preservation do any means necessary to keep his position in power while
remaining conscious of the fact that he is to not aggravate the relationship he has established with
the state. Meanwhile, a self-indulging man would do whatever it takes to maintain his power and
influence to abuse it in ways just to rob the state of its rightful share in resources.

5
Ayuso, Victoria Marcia Pereira. "Machiavelli on the Use of Immoral Means in Politics." https://www.e-
ir.info/2014/08/08/machiavelli-on-the-use-of-immoral-means-in-politics/.
6
Kee, Tan Wei. "Amorality and Justice in Machiavelli’s Political Thought." https://www.e-
ir.info/2011/05/10/amorality-and-justice-in-machiavellis-political-thought/.
7
"Ferdinand E. Marcos." http://www.dnd.gov.ph/ferdinand-e-marcos.html.
 Furthermore, the practice of Machiavellian ways is present in the coming political agendas
form the theory’s conception. Many political leaders, including those listed above, have adopted
this theory and even if their acts were done with a firm hand, demonstrating violence and war, they
were able to cover it up by justifying their means as a conduct of nationalism and loyalty. Their
respective states would respect and cherish their leadership for he had brought them great success
and prosperity.
Machiavelli’s thoughts on politics is a more realistic approach over the system of
government Florence had employed that was run by religious ideals. He was able to comprehend
that as a political leader, one must not rely on their riches and fortune for they are very
unpredictable but instead, focus on one’s own greatness, strength and other virtues which is an
aspect one can rely and manipulate.
All of Machiavelli’s teaching has necessity as its root and doing whatever means to achieve
it regardless of morality is the complete definition of being amoral.
In conclusion, Machiavelli’s views embodies amorality and politics should be the same.
An amoral leader would be the perfect “prince” if he keeps to his restraints in serving the state.
Machiavelli negates the right or wrong judgement as long as the desired ends are met and not just
have political leaders make a speech of upholding these “moral standards” while doing nothing
but be self-indulgent. Politics is in no way a clean and safe arena to play into for power and
influence would always be present. There is no room for upholding the virtues of religion.
However, to keep their position, political leaders would go beyond immoral means as long as they
keep in mind that they are to be “virtuous”, independent from the volatile fortune and always be
concerned about the state being their main priority or anarchy would ensue, rendering them
powerless.