Why is Machiavellianism criticized? After all, if you are not dishonest and immoral, and your enemy is, then you will lose.
PS We are talking about the application of this strategy primarily in war.
Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
“Dishonesty” and “immorality” are effective only in the short term. In the long run, you can't rely on them. “You can lie to a few for a long time, or to many for a short time, but you can't always lie to everyone.”
How is an unprincipled and immoral person going to retain supporters when they find out about his unscrupulousness? After all, being unscrupulous means that you can't trust him. So, you can't be a supporter of it. That is, an unprincipled person can act only when he constantly changes his environment to new people who do not yet know that he is unprincipled. But first, people are not infinite. Secondly, they can talk to each other. That is, sooner or later someone will simply kill an unprincipled person, while a principled person will be surrounded by principled supporters who will be loyal to him out of principle.
UPD: I missed the clarification about “at war”. Don't confuse “predictability” with “honesty.” It is immoral to kill civilians in war. It is dishonorable to offer to make peace in war, and at a meeting to kill the parliamentarians. Those who kill civilians risk fighting not only the army, but the entire country. Anyone who kills members of parliament runs the risk that no one will negotiate with them either. So here, too, there is only a short-term benefit – you can win one war in this way, but lose all the subsequent ones.
Any medal always has a second side. As a model of behavior, it is quite acceptable and takes place, but you should always take into account further consequences.
It is clear that the ruler has a heavy burden of managing the human vices of his subjects for the benefit of the development of society, but if you resort only to the whip, this causes appropriate reactions.
You can list only some of the disadvantages of this management style:
-short-term perspective;
– no longer motivates for development, but depresses;
– psychological, imputed costs on the part of the leader;
– subjects do not develop, do not learn, and in the absence of a clearly defined task, they are lost.
Any extreme is a disastrous road.
Those who criticize Nicola Machiavelli have not read it, but criticize it firsthand. Meanwhile, he wrote the right thoughts. And his claim that dictators are replacing anarchy and democracy is correct and now relevant.
When Machiavelli lived, politics was very unstable. Kings constantly threw each other, and instead of Italy, there were a bunch of duchies and city-republics that tried to fight back against France, Spain, the Ottoman Empire and at the same time constantly fought among themselves. Everyone had to get out of it as soon as possible – change sides in the course of the war, make a sudden separate peace, etc. The very concept of peace meant-to make the most favorable decision at this time and in this situation, for example: make an alliance with the Borgias, tell the king of France that they were forced to do this, give the French the right of passage, tell the Borgias that the French themselves invaded their lands, get approval from both sides, profit! You can live in peace for a couple of years until new players join the game.
Figuratively speaking, at that time the situation was even more fun than in Game of Thrones, in which only the most hardened schemers also survived.
In more or less peaceful times, such behavior is not very profitable, but if the situation turns out to be such that a conflict begins with several parties or “all against all”, then you should not count on honesty, because an honest person can lose everything, and the deceiver can justify himself “I'm sorry that we had to suddenly betray you, but we were forced. Now we are offering you an alliance again, because if you refuse, we will both suffer. I know that we have already betrayed you ten times, and we will betray you as many more times, but that will be later, and now we can provide you with real help, unlike our common enemy, who will not stand on ceremony with you. “
It depends on what you're fighting for! such qualities are possessed only by those people who live this way in life, not only in war, this is their essence from the early years of their life ! his side in this war is not reliable, in order to calm his moral principles and calm his broken soul! who wants to punish everyone who doesn't think how he doesn't accept his marals and morals ! in his war there is no strength no spirit and no faith but only the pacification of his vicious and selfish morals ! It will be difficult for such a person to win the war, but victory is not important there!! Another thing is if you are a proud fair honest and self respecting person who will fight for a very big meaning ! (of course, not without military tricks )With him, people will stand up for dignity, so that they defend the very nature of humanity and marali ! well sort of