Hulliung And Machiavelli
Is Hulliung right? Hulliung discusses how
people understand Machiavelli and what
he thinks of some of Machiavelli’s
concepts. In the chapter of "interpreting
Machiavelli", Hulliung argues
in the issues of means and ends, idealism Vs
realism, political violence and
weather Machiavelli is a pagan. His ideas
somewhat seem to be convincing.
However, the question is, is Hulliung fair in
judging Machiavelli? Or is he
immoral? Hulliung thinks that there are no
differences between ends and
means. In other words if the means are violent, in
his view, the ends will be
violent as well. What Hulliung says is that nothing
can justify a means
except the end that it is intended to serve. Hulliung points
out that if an
action is morally bad in itself, it cannot really serve a good
end, even
though it may on the surface appear to do so. In other words, men in
power
have often tried to condone their use of violence or fraud by making
it
appear that their injustice to individuals is for the social good and
is,
therefore, justified. But since the good society involves justice for
all, a
government, which employs unjust means fails the end. The issue of
ends and
means has a bit to do with Machiavelli being a realist, as he
thought that for
Machiavelli realism and idealism were both the same. A
realist ruler when it
comes to ends and means usually asks himself: Will it
work? Will this means, if
employed, accomplish the purpose I have in mind? If
not, it is certainly not the
right way to use. Usually after raising the
question if he were right morally,
in taking whatever steps, it might serve
as means to his end. When the answer is
yes, one would not hesitate to use
his means. If not, then he is not morally
justified in employing such means.
Since a bad end is one that we are not
morally justified in seeking, we are
not morally justified in taking any steps
whatsoever toward its
accomplishment. Hence, no means made morally right, by a
bad end, can be
justified. Nonetheless, we are always morally justified in
working for
accomplishing good ends. We are then, also morally justified in
using any
means which will work; for if the end is good, and if the means serves
the
end and does not defeat it in any way, then there can be nothing wrong
with
the means. The end then justifies it, and we are justified in using it.
For
example, in education sometimes the means justifies the end, even if the
end is
not what you would have chosen. If you teach like you believe one
should teach
and you end up not satisfying those who think they agree with
you or those who
don't, you've still accomplished something that might be
called education. . In
criticizing Machiavelli Hulliung did not only mention
means and ends, and
realism versus idealism, but he had also criticized
Machiavelli’s use of
violence. He stated that Machiavelli uses violence as a
means of attaining
glory. However, this method could at sometimes be
successful. It is indeed
sometimes the only solution or the only treatment
that could be flourishing. In
the context of economic globalization, many
methods of rule described in The
Prince are used today in many countries
around the world, especially those that
do not have a democratic heritage and
clearly do not share one’s idealistic
views of what is right and what is
wrong. That entire one needs to prove this is
to look at the political
climate that exists. For example, like in many of the
third world nation
violence is often used, and it often serves the good of the
country. Many
companies who do business in many developing nations probably
utilize
Machiavellian principles themselves (unless they are legally forbidden
by the
nation of their incorporation or by some treaty) if they want to have
any
chance of success in those countries. In addition to all what hulliung
said
about Machiavelli, he accused him of being a pagan. Machiavelli's
ambiguous
treatment of religion has fueled a contentious and prolonged s
debate among
people. Whereas some insist that Machiavelli is a Christian
because of some of
his ideal points, Hulliung maintains he is a pagan. His
examination of
Machiavelli’s violent ideas about the treatment of the
citizens made him
thinks he was not a religious man. However, morality has
very little to do with
any religion. Certainly one must have morals to be
considered religious, but
some people are agnostic and have much higher
values than most of the more
common "believers". The strife between the
religions of the world has
usually been perpetrated by the masses in the
"name" of said religion,
when in reality it has been our own ignorance and
hatred of those that are
different that leads us to act with little
integrity. Maybe if we look at our
beliefs and search to understand why
things are the way they are we would be
able to come to some common ground on
the states of things. My point being that
if we follow the rules to get to
heaven we have not understood what life is
about. We have done all for
ourselves and have cheated others out of just due
respect. Now if there is no
heaven the situation is still going to be the same.
No understanding
leads toeing self-centered and unhappy. Morality is giving with
want for no
return. It is selfless and cannot be found in the doctrine of any
religion
but only in the hearts of those willing to understand. Hulliung had
shed the
light on many of Machivelli’s expressions that could be understood
wrongly.
It is only when we do not look too closely into the matter that we can
be
fooled by the statement ‘the end justifies the means’. We fail to ask
whether
the end in view is really good, or we fail to examine carefully how the
means
will affect the end. This happens most frequently in the game of
power
politics or in war, where the only criterion is success and anything
that
contributes to success that one thinks of it as it is justified. Success
may be
the standard by which we measure the expediency of the means, but
expediency is
one thing and moral justification is another. Hulliung has also
accused
Machiavelli of being a pagan. However the issue of religion is
not something we
should really care about. It is reasonable to use religion
in the pursuit of
power; but it is certain that there are many politicians or
leaders of organized
crimes to this day go to church. The point is not to be
religious, but to be
seen to be religious. The people want piety in their
leaders, even if in their
private lives they have no respect for
religion.