Niccolo Machiavelli "The Prince"
Around 1513 Niccolo Machiavelli while writing "The Prince" would not be considered a theologian. When thinking of Machiavelli many people confuse him together with the names of rulers who have abused his writings. It also seems other people confuse Machiavelli with the rapper who took his name. Either- way people confuse Machiavelli it seems they fail to look at his true message, bettering the state and the greater good. Machiavelli may seem evil to some but his political theory properly applied is optimal for founding a state, establishing and then maintaining order.
Machiavelli being a consequentialist believed actions should be judged by their consequences. Machiavelli because of the way he thought believed you could calculate a consequence. Thinking this way is a great way to justify actions some would consider to be immoral. The question though was Machiavelli really justifying immoral actions or was he simply being rational? The answer is not obvious though and matters who you are speaking to.
Machiavelli can be considered evil seeing that he does in a manner justify it. Does Machiavelli justify all evil and is he totally separated from good? The answer to that question relies whether or not you are speaking to a utilitarian. Another problem occurs though is there such thing as a pure utilitarian? For the sake of simplification when applying utilitarian it will be though as someone who is not purely utilitarian seeing that it is almost impossible to be purely utilitarian. Returning to the initial question of whether he is separated from all that is good, a utilitarian would say no. Machiavelli does justify actions some consider immoral. What is morality though? Some consider morality to be a distinction between right and wrong. Is not the betterment of society no matter how many it hurts, as long as it does not hurt the majority moral? When thinking of right and wrong would it not be right to save more even though you have to
Machiavelli being a consequentialist believed actions should be judged by their consequences. Machiavelli because of the way he thought believed you could calculate a consequence. Thinking this way is a great way to justify actions some would consider to be immoral. The question though was Machiavelli really justifying immoral actions or was he simply being rational? The answer is not obvious though and matters who you are speaking to.
Machiavelli can be considered evil seeing that he does in a manner justify it. Does Machiavelli justify all evil and is he totally separated from good? The answer to that question relies whether or not you are speaking to a utilitarian. Another problem occurs though is there such thing as a pure utilitarian? For the sake of simplification when applying utilitarian it will be though as someone who is not purely utilitarian seeing that it is almost impossible to be purely utilitarian. Returning to the initial question of whether he is separated from all that is good, a utilitarian would say no. Machiavelli does justify actions some consider immoral. What is morality though? Some consider morality to be a distinction between right and wrong. Is not the betterment of society no matter how many it hurts, as long as it does not hurt the majority moral? When thinking of right and wrong would it not be right to save more even though you have to