Chase Gorland
Social Sciences
Prof. Rafferty
12.9.10
                                                                Power as an End in Itself
    Machiavelli first diverges from St. Augustine’s Christian tradition in his assumptions on the purpose of political action, as rather than viewing politics as a means to express God’s will, Machiavelli believes the objective of a political leader should be to take and maintain power.  He judges the quality of a leader according to the effectiveness with which he follows this aim, not the extent to which he conforms to Christian doctrine.  The conspicuous absence of references to God in The Prince demonstrates Machiavelli’s view that politics and morality belong in separate spheres of thought, and that a moral action will not always, or even rarely, be the most politically astute one.  Throughout his work Machiavelli uses historical examples to demonstrate that the strongest and most secure leaders are often those who employ violent or deceitful tactics rather than those who attempt to treat the city of man as an insignificant step before the city of God.  His treatment of these historical examples is in itself revealing of the areligious nature of The Prince, as even in describing the actions of Moses and various Popes, Machiavelli considers their success in terms of their political virtue rather than their demonstration of God’s hand in history.        
    In as far as Machiavelli is concerned with the good works of a prince, he is essentially utilitarian in his moral outlook rather than deontological as doctrinaire Christians had been.  This is to say that Machiavelli sees the value of an action in its consequences, whereas a deontological Christian would view the action itself as having moral value.  When speaking of a leader who makes frequent use of executions in contrast to a compassionate leader, Machiavelli concludes that “he will be more compassionate than those who, through too much compassion, allow disorders to occur from which arise killings or robberies.  For the latter usually harm an entire population, but those executions that come from the prince harm a particular person” (Machiavelli, 91).  This is essentially a defense of the principle that the outcome of an action justifies the means by which it was reached.  With this outlook, the prince would be obliged to commit an evil act in order to maintain order through fear, preventing more the widespread evil that would be committed without this threat.
    Both St. Augustine and Machiavelli would agree on the inherent sinfulness of humans, although their conclusions differ greatly on how this should affect governance.  St. Augustine believes that because of Adam’s original sin, “sinfulness in the mind and will [is] innate in every son of Adam,” although “[man] was meant to do the will of God rather than his own” (St. Augustine, 209).  For St. Augustine, the purpose of good government is to hold man’s sinfulness in check in preparation for the city of God in the afterlife.  Sinfulness lies in man becoming proud  and seeking “exultation” of the self, which leads him to follow his temporal needs over his search for salvation (St. Augustine, 209-10).  St. Augustine would view Machiavelli’s emphasis on power as an end in itself as a sinful neglect of salvation’s greater importance: “In the city of the world both the rulers themselves and the people they dominate are dominated by the lust for domination” (St. Augustine, 210).  In light of his views on pride as the origin of sin, replacing God-centeredness with self-centeredness, St. Augustine would find heretical Machiavelli’s assertion that “God does not want to do all things, so as not to take away our free will or any part of that glory that belongs to us” (Machiavelli, 121).  
    By contrast with St. Augustine, Machiavelli identifies the fact that because people will follow their own self interest rather than principle, a prince should make it in the interest of those most essential to his continued rule to support him.  His conclusion that it is more useful for a prince to be feared than loved is revealing of his view of the populace and human nature in general: “love is held in place by a bond of obligation which, because men are wretched, is broken at every opportunity for utility to oneself, but fear is held in place by a fear of punishment that never abandons you” (Machiavelli, 91).  Machiavelli believed that people can only be relied on if they have an incentive to be reliable, and through the use of his power a leader is able to distribute punishment and reward in order to maintain that power.  Conversely he notes that as the prince’s safety is guaranteed only by others’ fear of him, “anyone who does not care about dying is able to harm him” (Machiavelli, 102).  One could speculate that Machiavelli would have also viewed the Christian notions of heaven and hell as a religious example of this self-interest principle in practice.  As sin would supposedly lead one to suffer eternally in hell, while faith and good works would give one eternal bliss in heaven, it would be a matter of self-interest for all to obey God’s laws.  
    Instead of pointing out man’s “wickedness” and “faithlessness” as something to be remedied, Machiavelli views it as justification for the prince to reciprocate their duplicitousness (Machiavelli, 94).  He notes that it is “useful to seem compassionate, faithful, humane, honest, [and] religious,” but emphasizes these qualities only for their value as a public persona to give one’s reign the veneer of respectability (Machiavelli, 95).  The actual substance of these qualities is only valuable to Machiavelli in as far as it makes people more likely to obey the prince and love his rule; to him, behaving virtuously in the moral sense is a tactic for earning the trust of the public. Machiavelli discourages remaining moral on principle, however, lest the prince need to resort to wrongdoing in order to maintain his rule.  
    While Machiavelli believes that “a man who would wish to make a career of being good in every detail must come to ruin among so many who are not good”, St. Augustine would counter that a man’s downfall in the city of man is inconsequential in comparison to the benefit he receives from salvation (Machiavelli, 87).  This difference between the two is rooted in the aims that underlie the views of each on good governance.  Machiavelli is unconcerned with the afterlife or idealism, and instead seeks to “go after the effectual truth of the thing than the imagination of it”, to find practical solutions for temporal political problems with a nearly scientific detachment (Machiavelli, 87).  The work of St. Augustine and his adherents was more interested in transcending the matters of the temporal world than attempting to advocate politically effective methods of governing.

Works Cited:
“The Prince,” by Niccolò Machiavelli, circa 1513-15, translated, edited, and with an introduction by William J. Connell, Bedford/St. Martin’s
“The City of God,” by St. Augustine, circa 410, Readings in Social Theory & Modernization, Fall 2010, edited by John McGrath, pages 208-11