Integration of World Politics

       

        The sum of two negative values, multiplied by a negative value, equals a positive value.  It is surprising that even though all the values used in this operation are all negative values, the result came out to be a positive value, but it makes sense once the logic behind it is figured out.  That is the reason why we shouldn’t try to predict the result by looking at the values used, but the value we obtain in the end.  These kinds of uncertainties exist in the world as it does in mathematics, and it is one of the things Machiavelli argues in “The Prince”, but in terms of different values.  The phrase “Ends justify the means”, is a sensible approach to the world politics.  “Ends justify the means” states how the things done to get a certain result doesn’t define the intentions of an an action as a whole, but instead the result does and those actions can be neglected.  Machiavelli says this to the prince, stressing the importance of not being a “good man” all the time and a prince may have to commit evil things to achieve greatness, which makes sense to some extend. “This has to be understood: a prince…cannot possibly exercise all those virtues for which men are called “good”.  To preserve the state, he often has to do things against his word…charity…humanity…religion” (The Prince, page 49).  

        The main sense driving this approach, is that there is evil and uncertainty in the world a leader lives within.   As Machiavelli states, people are unpredictable and self-driven.  Because humans are unpredictable, we can’t think of politics from a deontological point of view.  Machiavelli approaches this issue with consequentialism, thinking the behavior of humans and their outcomes not as a sum of constants, but as the integration of a changing function.  This is a realistic approach to the nature of human, according to Machiavelli.  “…men are ready to change masters in the hope of bettering themselves” proves the fact that we can’t find a common solution for everyone every time (The Prince, 5).  A leader may have a hard time explaining certain actions which collide with the interests of some citizens, but in the bigger picture, they are more beneficial for the bigger whole.  Besides, sometimes you simply need to fight fire with fire.  “As a lion cannot protect himself from traps, and the fox cannot defend himself from wolves, you have to be a fox in order to be wary of traps, and a lion to overawe the wolves.  Those who try to live by the lion are badly mistaken” by Machiavelli explains the dynamics of the situation with a firm metaphor (The Prince, 48).  

        One thing Machiavelli didn’t point out is that, he unquestionably believes that all these action should result in a greater good, a greater good for the majority; and this kind of responsibility can’t be given to just anyone.  The reason why Machiavelli may not include this, could be because he writes all this to the prince he tries to prove he is on side of.  People are self driven and unpredictable including the prince himself.  This gap in Machiavelli’s work raises some arguments against Machiavelli’s point.  We have seen many third party benefits of wars made for greater goods, or sometimes no greater good at all.  Because of this, Machiavelli’s statements should be considered as an unpractical, but theoretical approach to the world politics, and shouldn’t be directly implemented to a state; not too far from Plato’s statements on politics, but much closer to the reality.  So “integrating” all the points, the outcome comes out to “ends justify the means” being a sensible approach to the world politics.