Познание, мораль и политика = Cognition, morality and policy. Учебное пособие

dreams of the good state structure and man as a god-like creature. The Italian cities could not overcome their fragmentation. N. Machiavelli’s concept which contained both the new theory of the social and political structure and the new ideology and even psychology was a sort of response to these conditions. This was the epoch when the notions of the native land and homeland emerged. They were more than mere integration of the territory, as the independence and greatness of the state are the result of its citizens’ efforts. Patriotism became a crucial duty and virtue. The nation was represented as an ideal of the social and political structure. In this context, Machiavelli realized that a new type of civil power was necessary: its legitimate character had to be based on its own nature, not justified by the divine law. A state acquires its independence and self-reliance the way humans do. This is why politics, unlike religion, becomes a new way of justifying morality. His work titled The Prince is not merely a political theory: it is a political act. This is an appeal, an attempt to implement the idea of the national state by any means, as it was the only way of saving Italy, overcoming its disintegration and internecine conflicts.

In the state life, public interest serves as a criterion of legitimacy of violence. The person in charge of the state organization may resort to extraordinary steps only in case of acting for the sake of the common advantage, as «only the acts of violence aimed at destroying, not improving, deserve dispraise». Not all means are always absolutely suitable for reaching even a necessary and good end. In Machiavelli’s opinion, treachery, treason, and violence «may help reach power, not honor»; he does not list those who choose inhumanity and commit crimes among the «greatest people». To him, «one sort of violence differs from another»1. He comments on the previous thesis as follows, «Violence is duly applied in those cases – if one is allowed to call evil

1 Макиавелли Н. Государь: Сочинения. М., 1999. (Machiavelli N. The Prince: Works. Moscow, 1999. P. 71, 73).

112

things good – when it is manifested immediately and for safety reasons, when one does not stick to it yet tries to turn it to the benefit of the citizens». The «evil violence» emerges when it turns to an almost only way of solving all the problems and is applied far and wide. Machiavelli seems to consider that violence for the sake of good is necessary for the citizens’ welfare. However, in his opinion, «... exterminators of religions, destroyers of republics and kingdoms, enemies of virtue, literature, and all the other arts which benefit and honor mankind, in other words, wicked, cruel, ignorant, blundering, lazy, and cowardly people are vile and disgusting»1. Machiavelli stigmatizes those who use tyranny as a means of gaining and holding their power. In this context, he criticizes even Julius Caesar. He considers a tyrant to be the most miserable of men, the way Plato does. In his opinion, politics without morality is regarded as a crime. In this connection, Lubomir Belas even draws a parallel between Kantian ethics and Machiavelli’s political philosophy, «The essence of Machiavelli’s ethics can be explained in comparison with Kant. What if everyone does that? This is the question Kant asks in his practical philosophy. One must keep one’s promise; one must avoid lies, deceit, and hypocrisy to live in the society. It will not be done by everyone, Machiavelli would have probably said. But we certainly know that, in his opinion, virtues, such as compassion, loyalty, honesty, humanity and piety, are necessary for civil life…»2.

However, «according to Machiavelli, politics cannot be separated from morality, it is completely absorbed by it; there is no sphere independent from politics…»3. Politics is already

1Макиавелли Н. Государь: Сочинения. М., 1999. (Machiavelli N. The Prince: Works. Moscow, 1999. P. 176).

2Белас Л. Власть и добродетель в «Государстве» Макиавелли //

Вестник РУДН. Сер. Философия. № 1, 2010. М., 2010. (Belas L. Power and Good in The State by Machiavelli. // Messenger of the Peoples' Friendship University of Russia. Philosophy Series. No 1, 2010. Moscow, 2010. P. 55).

3See the comment made by M. Andreev and R. Khlodovsky to Machiavelli N. Selected Works. Moscow, 1982. P. 470.

113

moral according to its mere definition. Another non-political morality only hampers implementing political objectives and therefore should be abolished, or attending to it is not necessary. Morality becomes a technical tool for a politician; it gets deprived of its essential and universal features1. This «humanism» (if it can be still referred to as humanism) is rather relative, announced at the stage of formation of centralized national states, and serves their interests.

Thus, Machiavelli urges us to follow the interests of the politics instead of the universal interpretation of morality, «Let the rulers not be afraid of being accused of the vices one can hardly maintain power without, as, if we think about it, we will find a lot of things which seem a virtue at first sight, yet actually are detrimental to the emperor, and vice versa…»2. The point is that the Italian and European reality left no hope for creating a republican state. Yet Machiavelli viewed «common good» as his goal; this is why he regarded only the strong monarchial centralized power as the way to the republic which could save his motherland.

Machiavelli merely acknowledges the things politicians and people in general have always concealed from themselves, as

1American sociologist A.W. Gouldner writes on the origins of Machiavelli's «bracketing» the morality issues, «Realizing that the things which have power in the society are not good is as painful and hard for a man as feeling that God is evil would be painful and hard for a believer. However, one should not weaken the contradictions of this unsanctioned world by silently attributing ‘morally good qualities’ to the ones who have the power; the problem may be solved otherwise. One of the most common ways here is to restrict or prohibit making any judgment in terms of such parameter as good, at the same time emphasizing the importance of evaluation in terms of power. Machiavellianism – Machtpolitik or Realpolitik – is an example of this trend in the sphere of policy; the concept of value-free social science is the same in the field of sociology». (Гоулднер А.У. Наступающий кризис западной социологии. М., 2003). (Gouldner A.W. Coming Crisis of Western Sociology. Moscow, 2003. P. 542).

2Макиавелли Н. Государь: Сочинения. М., 1999. (Machiavelli N. The Prince: Works. Moscow, 1999. P. 90–91).

114

Freud discovered later. He prefers the real social practice truths to those dictated by some abstract morality, «I choose to follow the truth which is not imaginary, yet the real one – as opposed to many people who portrayed the republics and states they have never known or seen in reality»1. He is interested in the way people act, not in the way they are supposed to act. Reality has the laws of its own, and they do not coincide with the actors’ wishes, even the most well-meaning ones. This position helped to get rid of religious and moral illusions regarding political interests both the upper and lower classes shared. In Machiavelli's opinion, religion and morality are subordinate to political considerations. Politics is analyzed as a completely independent sphere of human activity which has its own objectives and laws.

Machiavelli is concerned with the practical truth, not fantasy; a great number of people come up with the ideas of the states and principalities which have never existed, because they are interested in the way people should live instead of the way they actually live. Machiavelli opposes the realistic approach to political facts to the idealism typical of the traditional political philosophy. According to L. Strauss, Machiavelli’s critique of morality is «identical to his critique of classical political philosophy». Its main point can be expressed as follows: there is something fundamentally wrong about the approach to politics which ends in a Utopia, a description of the best system which is extremely problematic to put into action. Machiavelli deliberately lowers the standards of the social action to increase the probability of its implementation and reduce its dependence on the chance. Religious persecution and oppression result from the biblical principle which stands for too high an ideal. Machiavelli suggests lowering the objectives not to commit any atrocities in order to reach them, as they are not necessary for preserving the society and freedom. Classical political philosophy’s tendency to

1 Макиавелли Н. Государь: Сочинения. М., 1999. (Machiavelli N. The Prince: Works. Moscow, 1999. P. 90–91).

115

create a paradise on earth turns into hell, never-ending violence. In this case, Machiavelli acts as a critic of all utopianism; however, is the political ideal preserved while the utopia is destroyed? A utopia (something that requires real implementation, although implementing it is impossible, and results in violence, curtailment of social progress, and deformation of society) must be distinguished from an ideal, i.e. something that should be sought for as the infinite perfection, though its unattainability should be realized. Thus, Machiavelli has criticized the traditional political philosophy, which substitutes the things that should exist for the existent things themselves. He has another commitment; he bases his thoughts on the existent things without losing the sight of the things that should exist, «For the distance between the way people live and the way they should live is so enormous that he who denies the things as they are for the things as they should be acts more to his own detriment than to his good...»1.

However, if morality is incorporated into politics and cannot be autonomous, self-sufficient, it loses the opportunity to influence politics and humanize it. This is how the existent things enslave the things that should be. Besides, if virtue exists for the sake of the state and only within its framework, the political problem becomes a technical one: forcing people to be virtuous. It requires harsh institutions instead of divine mercy, morality, or character formation. According to Leo Strauss, a direct consequence of this understanding is a «new interpretation of virtue: virtue should not be construed as an objective of the existence of the state; by contrast, virtue exists for its sake; political life as such is not subject to morality, and morality is impossible outside political society; it implies the latter; no political society can be created and maintained while it remains within the framework of morality, for the simple reason that the consequence or the conditioned thing cannot precede their cause

1 Макиавелли Н. Государь: Сочинения. – М., 1999. (Machiavelli N.

The Prince: Works. – Moscow, 1999).

116

or condition». Meanwhile, «a political problem becomes a technical one»1.

There is also a re-orientation in the opinions regarding human nature. Man is no longer regarded as a divine creation, perfect in its essence, but is seen as a selfish creature, often ungrateful and therefore requiring «stick treatment» more than kindness, love, and even «carrot». Machiavelli has given up the traditional metaphysical position, according to which the nature of man was regarded as divine and good. In his opinion, man consists of contradictions, a confusion of good and evil, «… due to his nature, man cannot have only virtues, nor follow them unerringly».2 In this aspect, he is the pioneer of a new tradition that defines the Western European sociology, which regards human nature as selfish (T. Hobbes).

All the aspects discussed above have led to reframing the essence of morality and its place in society. The specificity of moral beliefs is that they claim to represent an unconditional, absolute value, for they reflect the common moral experience of people, the common interest in the relations between the individual and society. However, humans, according to Machiavelli, do not have only a few interests in common. The purpose of political activity is creating and strengthening the state, and the criterion of this activity is benefit and success. Everything that helps strengthening the state is good and beneficiary, and vice versa. Using or not using the virtues depends on a particular political situation. The prince should «not depart from good, if possible, but tread the path of evil, if necessary». Machiavelli claims, «It should be known that when the salvation of the motherland is at stake, no considerations of justice or injustice, mercy or cruelty, praise or shame may ever

1Штраус Лео. Три волны современности // Введение в политиче-

скую философию. М., 2000. (Straus Leo. Three Waves of Modernity // An Introduction to Political Philosophy. Moscow, М., 2000. P. 72).

2Макиавелли Н. Государь: Сочинения. М., 1999. (Machiavelli N. The Prince: Works. Moscow, 1999. P. 90).

117

outweigh it; on the contrary, the overall preference should be given to the course of action that will save its life and preserve its freedom». Anyone who professes the good in all circumstances will inevitably perish when faced with a great number of people who feel alien to the good. «It follows that the prince willing to keep his power must acquire the ability to deviate from the good and use this ability depending on the need»1.

According to Machiavelli, morality is possible only within a context that cannot be created by it. He has modified this context, replacing reason, abstract, consequently, notional justice, virtue (antiquity), and the medieval theism by politics as such. It is impossible to determine the benefit of society in terms of virtue; on the contrary, virtue itself must be defined in terms of general (political) good. A byproduct of this thread of an argument is opening the way not only to liberal democracy, yet also totalitarianism, dictatorship, and the ideology of the state dominating over the individual, as paradoxically noted by Leo Strauss. This logic has been most clearly demonstrated in the works by Rousseau, who defends the ideals of personal liberty, and republican (public) power, which could be distorted and transform into the Jacobin terror on behalf of the people during the Great French and the Bolshevik Revolution in reality.

Machiavelli treats the good as general purposes for all the communities: freedom from foreign rule, stability and rule of law, prosperity, etc. Only this purpose makes actions virtuous; a thing that contributes to reaching this objective is good. This end justifies any means. Virtue is restricted to its civil aspect here. Machiavelli has supposed that one has to shift the emphasis from the moral nature of virtue to public institutions, create a strictly governed republic, taking Ancient Rome as the model. In this case, the main «virtue» is craving for glory, through which self-interest contributes to the improvement of society. Justice shall arise only

1 Макиавелли Н. Государь: Сочинения. М., 1999. (Machiavelli N. The Prince: Works. Moscow, 1999. P. 90).

118

when injustice becomes unprofitable. Leo Strauss mentions that Machiavelli develops a doctrine which «pays full tribute to all the eventual requirements of the policy of blood and steel, and is the most favorable to political freedom and the rule of law alongside with that»1.

This modification of the understanding of morality became possible due to the change of epochs, the transition from the medieval concept of the inviolability of the eternal moral truths emanating from a transcendent source to a pantheistic and, actually, pagan worldview, where the relentless fate – fortune – acts. Hence Machiavelli’s virtù: A.Ch. Gorfunkel explains, «this is no longer medieval ‘virtue’, yet it is not a collection of moral qualities either; this is a power and the ability to act, a combination of activity, will, energy and desire to succeed, to achieve this goal, free from moral and religious strength ratings»2. The very concept of good begins to be thought of in a «humanist» manner, that is, it has started being regarded as a «benefit». Thus, benefit is substituted for the good: a useful thing is good. The benefit is regarded not in a metaphysical, but in an increasingly hedonistic way. As a result, the good can degenerate into selfishness.

According to Machiavelli, society is an arena where passions struggle. This is why he not only accepts violence, yet derives general welfare from it in a sense (by creating an artificial need). All modern sociology and political science are based on this thesis, i.e. the possibility of socializing selfishness. The system of social relations and the political system are conceived as a mechanism of deterring the selfish instincts of man, their sublimation. Parliamentarism is exactly an invention able to strike a balance between various self-interests. The short history of parliamentarism in Russia demonstrates how alien it is for the na-

1Макиавелли Н. Государь: Сочинения. М., 1999. (Machiavelli N. The Prince: Works. Moscow, 1999. P. 39).

2Горфункель А.Х. Философия эпохи Возрождения. М., 1980. (Gorfunkel A.Ch. Philosophy of the Renaissance. Moscow, 1980. P. 147).

119

tional culture and political life, which is inclined to conciliarism, or consensus, mutual understanding, as it is referred to nowadays. In this case, separation of powers appears not as a system of checks and balances, yet as collaborating government institutions oriented at reaching common national objectives. This is the system of power, the national and constitutional monarchy the Slavophiles desired. The system of government institutions, the practical constitution should and may result only from the spirit of the nation, their history and traditions (Hegel).

Machiavelli’s position was shared by Russian populists (narodniks) and democratic revolutionaries, whose methods were indirectly supported by liberals (!) in Russia in the 19th and the early 20th century. L.A. Tikhomirov has expressed this idea perfectly, «The issue was debated in an extremely passionate way. Land and Freedom, the most influential club in 1877–1878, took the rule saying that ‘the end justifies the means’ was their basic principle, introduced it in their program, and no one was admitted without a solemn confession of that Jesuit principle ever since. Indeed, revolutionaries could not avoid accepting it from their point of view. Moral concepts had them in a bind. In the meantime, why not kill, rob, or cheat? Why cannot one impose a particular fate on the nation?»1

Unfortunately, not only revolutionaries and liberals quietly or often openly supporting them were concerned; the idea of violence as a method of solving the most complicated social problems spread throughout the entire educated society, which resulted in throwing the nation into the bloodbath of revolution and civil war. Yet many ideologists had to go abroad, and Bolsheviks killed the rest.

As E. Rudnitskaya writes, «Catechism of the Revolutionary has generated the ideological and organizational foundation for

1Тихомиров Л.А. Начала и концы. Либералы и террористы // Россия

идемократия. М., 2007. (Tikhomirov L.A. The Beginnings and the Ends. Liberals and Terrorists. // Russia and Democracy. Moscow, 1997. P. 98).

120

that adventure of a revolution, the revolution which spawns despotism and totalitarianism. Everything that serves the revolution is moral: direct interpolation of the principle of Jesuitism applied to the cause of social progress will be the basis of the moral paradigm of the Russian Revolution»1. The political chaos «has resulted from raising immorality to the status of a principle of political struggle»; «... it was exactly the degree of radicalism which was directly connected with the moral provisions, revolutionary ideologues’ attitudes toward morality»2. For instance, Savinkov confesses, «We are poisoned by blood. We do not understand struggle without blood»3.

It can only be added that the domestic radicals did not limit themselves to Machiavelli’s position; as 1917 approached, violence as the method of achieving some mythical good society was gradually becoming an end in itself, as seizing power or maintaining it is actually impossible without it. Yet then the power itself is transformed into a continuous violence: Machiavellianism (which will be discussed below) and its practical implementation in the totalitarianism of Bolsheviks and Stalin are obvious. E. Rudnitskaya notes that Bolsheviks’ activity actually degenerated into Blanquism, «The Blanquist aspiration, which originally existed in the Russian liberation movement and gave the color to its most radical expression, clearly demonstrated itself during the revolution in October 1917, committed under the banner of socialism»4.

Machiavelli found many supporters outside Russia in the 20th century: French philosopher Maurice Merleau-Ponty (1908– 1961), who believed that virtue sometimes results in a disaster, yet violence turns out to be less severe than indulgence in histori-

1Рудницкая Е.Л. Лики русской интеллигенции. М., 2007. (Rudnitskaya E.L. Faces of Russian Intellectuals. Moscow, 2007. P. 424–425).

2Ibid. P. 423, 427.

3Савинков Б. Воспоминания террориста. М., 2002. (Savinkov B.

Memoirs of a Terrorist. Moscow, 2002. P. 542).

4Рудницкая Е.Л. Лики русской интеллигенции. М., 2007. (Rudnitskaya E.L. Faces of Russian Intellectuals. Moscow, 2007. P. 428).

121