Machiavelli's Argument On What Is Good

In the chapter assigned, Machiavelli asserts that it is not only acceptable, but necessary for a ruler to go back on his word if his previous promises place him at a disadvantage. In this paper, I will argue that the purpose of this passage is to persuade readers of the notion that being a good leader many times involves actions that would not be considered “good” as such. Then, I will use examples from the text to explain how this falls into Machiavelli’s overall themes of efficiency and pragmatism, and how this makes for a logical method of ruling. Machiavelli begins the passage by noting how laudable it is for a ruler to be truthful and straightforward in his dealings, but that the truly great princes have been flexible with their word, putting them at an advantage over honest men. He then calls
That involves, in large part, being the sort of ruler that your people can get behind. This is why Machiavelli advises against depleting the nation’s treasury and in favor of moving to newly acquired territory to live closely to your new people. Staying in power is due in large part to being an effective and appreciated ruler. Making the people love you, or at least not despise you is one thing, and ruling wisely is the other. So when Machiavelli says that “…one must know how to colour one’s actions and to be a great liar and deceiver,” (57) it is not because deception is commendable, but because it is often necessary. When keeping true to one’s word no longer suits a ruler, and he can go back on his promise but can present as though he is an honest man, he should do so. His argument is a compelling one, because it is predicated not on one thinks he ought to do, but on what one should do to achieve his desired outcome. If the outcome desired is continued rule, then follow the steps outlined, and you will more likely than not achieve that. Morals are a tool to be used to achieve that