Niccolo Machiavelli's The Prince is the first work of political philosophy to abandon idealism for pragmatism. This is not to suggest a trend in political philosophy. Rather, Machiavelli is an exception to the rule. Contemporaries and moderns did not abandon the ideal.
Rawls, a contemporary, works with both the ideal, justice, by defining it in a pragmatic way. Rawls' Justice as Fairness is both ideal in that it seeks justice as an ultimate goal yet pragmatic in that it does not advocate for pure equity in that everyone has the same outcomes. For example, Rawls justifies economic inequality if and only if the least off are benefited by the wealth of the best off. He does pursue idealism like Plato did, but he also acknowledges the way the world works like Machiavelli did.
If this were the paper I would have put the previous paragraph into a footnote, but this is not the paper!
King Louis XIV was king of France for a very long time, long enough that he led France through five of her wars. These wars were the Franco-Dutch war, the War of the League of Augsburg, War of Spanish Succession, the War of Devolution, and the War of the Reunions. In my research I will examine these wars and the extent to which Louis XIV personally led his armies, determining whether or not he was a warrior as Machiavelli claims any leader must be.
Why should I, the king, risk my life when I have soldiers who will die for me? The Machiavellian answer is that a general will take your principality away from you and become the new prince. Why can't I just send a general to lead the troops like Presidents do? President Obama is the commander in chief of the United States military, but he delegates leadership to the joint chiefs of staff. The answer is that the United States, and other Western democracies, have popular sovereignty and the people elect their presidents and the soldiers are counted among the people.
The president is not a prince, and a prince must never rest after securing power. To Machiavelli justice and the right to rule is the will of the stronger. Machiavelli's view is in line with the view of Thucydides, which is that "The strong do what they will and the weak suffer what they must." Essentially, if you are strong enough you will obtain a principality through force of arms either by fortune or by virtue. Whichever way is irrelevant, what is relevant is that some other strong person will obtain an army through fortune or virtue and take it from you unless you are stronger than he.
Chapter XIV of The Prince begins with "Thus, a prince should have no other object, nor any other thought, nor take anything else as his art [technical skill] but that of war and its orders and discipline; for that is the only art which is of concern to one who commands. And it is of such virtue that not only does it maintain those who have been born princes but many times it enables men of private fortune to rise to that rank; and on the contrary, one sees that when princes have thought more of amenities than of arms, they have lose their states" (Machiavelli, 58)
Louis XIV had victories and defeats. Louis XIV was successful in acquiring some of the Spanish controlled Netherlands, but he was unable to prevent the Protestant King William III of England from securing the throne after overthrowing the Catholic King James II. Louis XIV's reign was not graced with an undefeated military, but his military was strong. So strong, in fact, that in the war of the League of Augsburg France stood alone against a coalition that encompassed almost the whole military might of Europe.
In my research I will examine the extent to which Louis XIV was personally a warrior as Machiavelli says a prince must be.
Sources:
Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince. 2nd ed. N.p.: University of Chicago Press, 1985. 58-60. Print.
http://www.enotes.com/topics/theory-justice
I like your new topic idea, it's rather grounded and gives a little more help to you than just "Divine Right." You'll just want to make sure to *stay* grounded when we start making the necessary normative claims when you get into linking Louis XIV to the warrior prince ideal.
ReplyDeleteSo yes, it seems different than divine right, and of course by Louis's time going into the field was less of an ideal--so does it work? Also--was that Thucyides's ideal or is he quoting others? I thought he was reporting about the Athenians. In any case, check into that.
ReplyDelete