Machiavelli’s Moral Indifference. Explained.

---

Machiavelli’s main concern is how the Prince can maintain his sway over subjects. To do this, he allowed the Prince to act in ways that suit the circumstances, and not follow a rigid moral compass.

Machiavelli offered double standards of morality: one for the Prince and the other for the subjects. Morality of the ruler is judged by success in keeping and increasing power. The ruler should have martial qualities to defend the State against external aggression and internal disunity.

The morality of the subjects is judged by the strength which the conduct of the Prince imparts to the social group. It includes public spiritedness and patriotism necessary for ensuring freedom and deterring tyranny. Machiavelli keeps the Prince above the morality which is to be enforced within the group.

Machiavelli separated the private from the public sphere of morality. The Prince should be compassionate, humane, loyal, and honest while simultaneously willing to use force, fraud, deception, and treachery.

For Machiavelli, the end justifies the means. Achieving the morality of the State, which is simply the morality of success, sanctions use of any means necessary to achieve it.

Machiavelli put nation interest as supreme. Neither religion nor ethics can get priority over it. For him, politics is no longer a means to higher goals like justice or good life, but an end in itself.

In politics, the Prince will be judged by the success of the end he pursued, not for the rightness of the means. People may forgive an unethical action, but they will never forgive if the action of the Prince has put them in danger.

Machiavelli’s Prince may be described as amoral. He is neither good nor bad, neither wicked nor the reverse. He has no moral character in the traditional sense of the term. The traditional moral virtues are simply no part of his character.