From Wikipedia we get this about Nicolo Machiavelli, the author of the famous book – The Prince - wherein he advises rulers on how to rule.
“Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli[a] (3 May 1469 – 21 June 1527) was a Florentine diplomat, author, philosopher, and historian who lived during the Italian Renaissance. He is best known for his political treatise The Prince (Il Principe). He has often been called the Western (my addition) father of modern political philosophy and political science.
After his death Machiavelli's name came to evoke unscrupulous acts of the sort he advised most famously in his work, The Prince. He concerned himself with the ways a ruler could succeed in politics, and believed those who flourished engaged in deception, treachery, and violence. He advised rulers to engage in evil when political necessity requires it, at one point stating that successful founders and reformers of governments should be excused for killing other leaders who would oppose them. Machiavelli's Prince has been surrounded by controversy since it was published. Some consider it to be a straightforward description of political reality. Many view The Prince as a manual, teaching would-be tyrants how they should seize and maintain power. ”
To me, First, He lived in a different time – that was a different world that he lived in, violence was everywhere, since they lacked the modern techniques for catching perpetrators, most criminals could get away with most crimes. These were not democracies, there were hundreds of small kingdoms, some big and some were empires. There were constant wars fought over land and resources. This was not a time for diplomacy, but the rule of the sword, even today it seems, Might Makes Right.
Hence Machiavelli advised Kings and Emperors to behave differently, ruthlessly, the rules that ordinary people abide by were not for them. Catherine, the Great, ruler of Russia had her OWN husband killed once she came to power. Plenty of instances in history where one of the princes had his brothers and father killed to gain the Throne.
In Hinduism there is a word that is constantly used Dharma – or one’s duty (loosely translated). Dharma is different for each person; your Dharma might be different from mine. Let us take an example – If you are a householder, and while you were sleeping in your home with your family, you hear a break-in. You pick up your gun, turn the lights on, and confront the thief. You fire a shot in the air and the thief runs away, maybe with some valuables! Do you shoot him in the back? You are an ordinary citizen, your Dharma might implore you to hold back, the threat is gone, your family is safe, not much is lost, nothing more needs to be done.
Now let’s assume you are a police officer, and you just witnessed a crime being committed, you see the criminal running away – do you let him go? You fire a shot in the air or by the side of the running criminal, a warning shot, yelling at the criminal to stop, but if he keeps running, your Dharma is to shoot, to not kill, but to injure the criminal so that he will stop running.
And now let’s move on to the battlefield – a war is raging. You see the enemy has lost its firepower, some of them are running away! Do you shoot? Yes, it is your Dharma as a soldier to win the war, to kill as many enemy soldiers as you can and when you shoot, you shoot to kill. You do not fire warning shots, you do not shoot to injure, but to kill.
We see that all these three people could be the same person – the police officer is also a husband, a family man. Later, He could join the army but as his position changes, his Dharma also changes.
That is what Machiavelli is suggesting – that Kings, men or women in power must act differently, they must not give in to emotion.
Most of us have heard of the famous quote, again, reading from Google - "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" is an iconic line from Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982), spoken by Spock to justify his fatal self-sacrifice to save the Enterprise crew. It is a quintessential statement of utilitarian ethics, prioritizing the greatest good for the greatest number.”
In such movies, the captain usually does the opposite of the above, he implores that the few who are trapped or in danger, must be rescued, the majority must sacrifice to save the few and of course, since it is a movie, they triumph in the end.
But in the REAL WORLD, most captains would do what Spock did – they would look out for the larger picture – they must consider, how if things went wrong, a lot more people would be severely affected.
That is what Kings, Emperors must decide – they must make cruel decisions, sacrifices must be made. They must put their emotions aside and make tough decisions that for most people leading with their emotions, judge them to be wrong, inhumane. Watch now:
