Argument For Morality

A New Argument for Morality: A Critique

The Prince, one of the first works of modern philosophy, was written in the genre of political doctrine: the Mirror of Princes. This style was reflected in the works of many writers of antiquity, such as Seneca and Isocrates, extending as far back as to the apices of traditional Western culture and civilization in Rome and Greece. As The Prince derives its thought from classical roots of political thought, its originality is questionable. The third chapter of The Prince was the foundation of Rafael Major’s argument in A New Argument for Morality as it is “a kind of intellectual cornerstone for all modern political thought.” It must be analyzed in an attempt to evaluate the moral teaching of the
In order to benefit from Machiavelli’s “moral suasion” it is imperative that one understands this chapter, which begins with the assertion of “two fundamental truths or natural conditions of political life in newly acquired characteristics.” The first natural difficulty is that in every principality, there are citizens who would willingly take arms up against their prince in the belief that they would fare better with a new prince. Machiavelli suggests that being cruel is a “natural” necessity in order to maintain the stability of a state. Major contradicts this assertion through a magnification of the first passage of chapter three. The obscurity of Machiavelli’s language makes it “impossible to discern that the second natural and ordinary necessity has even been specified,”as “the reader is only told that the second necessity of political life ‘requires that one must always offend those over whom he becomes a new prince.’” The rest of the chapter, however, seems to indicate that the second natural and ordinary necessity must be similar to self-defence. The threat of inevitable foreign invasion establishes the necessity of preservation of one’s state by “necessary
Machiavelli exemplifies the Romans as the standard for a wise prince, who ought to anticipate all present and future troubles; this is his foundation for all wise judgement. However, the Romans also had to anticipate foreign threats; thus all cruelty is excusable under the necessity of protecting themselves. Self-defence from an invasion is both a response to classical and Christian moral thinking, according to Major. It can become a “limitless licence of action,” though only prudence and vigilance offer true protection from the “natural difficulties of political life.” At the heart of Machiavelli’s political philosophy is the solution to such difficulties of political life: moral teaching. But the writers of antiquity, though they were realistic, envisioned an order of morality, that, according to Major, offers hope that a non-Machiavellian approach to politics