The Machiavellian Virtu Rhetoric is Alive and Well
http://phistars.blogspot.com/2011/12/machiavellian-virtu-rhetoric-is-alive.html
The Machiavellian Virtu Rhetoric is Alive and Well
In The Prince, virtu seems to mean prudence. Virtu was the answer to lack of order and security in Italy. Virtu not only dictates behavior, but also ways to excessive power. Virtue differs from virtue. What were considered virtuous in Machiavelli’s time were honesty, and mercy. These are values that the church taught during this time. Virtu on the other hand demands hypocrisy and cruelty[1]. These on the other hand were considered vices during Machiavelli’s time. However, under the right circumstances these vices can be turned into virtues. Today, virtu cannot be spoken about without arousing ill content. The ancient Christian values of honesty and mercy are still held in high rewards today. Virtu is still used today in modern politics. The only difference is that hypocrisy and cruelty go by other names.
Under virtu, the power and security of the city state is the only thing that matters[2] . A Prince must not hesitate to use these vices should the need arise. More importantly, a Prince must disguise these vices. Machiavelli realizes that most people will hardly ever get to know a person intimately. Humankind judges by appearance. It is for this reason that, it is prudent to pretend to excessive virtue .To do this, one has to perform honor rituals. A person who behaves honorably is the least suspected to have vices. He stated that for every deceiver there is a person who lets himself be deceived. For those that think virtu is unnecessary, it is important to remember Machiavelli’s view of humanity. He believed that humans by nature were wicked. Thus, to protect the citizens from themselves, one must not hesitate to excessive virtu. In the end, should the Prince maintain his state, all his actions will then be considered honorable.
Too much honesty leaves one at the mercy of the dishonest. Politics is crocked. In the court, it is common for nobles to adulate in exchange for favors[3] . Meanwhile, these adulators might shift sides the minute that the Prince starts losing power. To defend oneself against the dishonest one must exercise dishonesty. One should not let adulators know that you are onto them. It is best to take them by surprise and prepare for when your fortune might change. He must then sort out the adulators from the truly faithful. Through hypocrisy a prince must guard himself from adulators as if they were his declared enemies.
Today, on a regular day to day basis people rely on virtu’s hypocrisy to avoid trouble. One cannot go about telling ones honest opinion on everything without losing one’s job, lovers and reputation. We each are forced to create a hypocritical socially acceptable self in order to fit into society. A virtus’ way of using hypocrisy appeared in the 9/11 Commissioner Report that I read last year. In this report, the government explained what the Y2K problem was truly all about. It turns out, that during this time, there occurred massive terrorist plane hijacking. In order to keep the public calm, they claimed that the computers were going to malfunction. This would cover the eventuality of any successful attacks because the attacks would be blamed on the computers. However, hypocrisy for selfish reasons is not virtu.
The second aspect of virtu is cruelty. There are different measures of cruelty. Sometimes it is considered kindness for cruelty to be dealt in a single stroke, instead of cruelty that worsens as time passes[4] . Short cruelties are for example, killing in self defense. This is the only that Machiavelli advices to inflict cruelty on others. Even today, killing in self defense is acceptable. However, this has greater implications when it comes to the self defense of Prince. Machiavelli compares cruelty and benefits to food[5] . Those done quickly are tasted less. However, cruelty portioned out for a long period of time remains are remembered by his new subjects. Since they are repeated daily, the subjects to not fell secure. Benefits on the other hand should be portioned slowly so the new subjects get a good feel for the generosity of the new monarch.
Today, modern equivalent merciful cruelty is capital punishment. Like Machiavelli, the supporters of capital punishment claim that death sentences helped keep insolent men in line[6] . Having too lenient a punishment makes criminals reckless. It is best to make an example of a few, to keep the rest in line. US states that do have death penalty have finally settled on the lethal injection as the most merciful execution. I can understand why Machiavelli would desire short cruelties. During his time, it the Inquisition was infamous for slow and painful death, the best example being witch burning. In the Mallus Malifecarum, the Inquisitors went to great length and detail about the preliminary tortures before the execution. Today, tortured is unacceptable, yet water boarding is carried out in Guantanamo Bay. This torture is supposedly merciful because of its non intrusive nature. It supposes to simulate the feeling of drowning without actually drowning the person.
As you can see, the Machiavellian rhetoric is alive and well in this day and age. When it comes to matters of National Security or Law enforcement hypocrisy and cruelty are readily used. I am neither for nor against these vices as long as they work for the benefit of US. The problem arises from their misusages. Hypocrisy for the state’s advancement is applauded. However, one looks very negatively at diplomats who use it to advance their own political careers. As for cruelty, it’s unacceptable. One only gets away with cruelty these days by calling it mercy. Both hypocrisy and cruelty are alive and well. The Machiavellian rhetoric is still been used time and time again to excuse drastic measures for the sake of national security. One has to wonder for how long the validity of this argument will stay alive.
Machiavelli, Niccolo Oxford World’s Classics : The Prince Oxford University Press Translated by Peter Bondanella 2005.
.
