From: "Sydney Ribot"
Subject: finished machiavelli essay
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 14:40:41 -0400
Sydney Ribot
Cartersville High School
Governor’s Honors Program
June 16, 2006
Stanley Milgram’s film Obedience and Machiavelli’s The Prince share a cumbersome burden: the elucidation of weakness, the most disconcerting aspect of the human condition. Although they bear little in common structurally, they relate in such a way that Milgram’s experiment conclusively proves not only the cogency but the cold necessity of the governing principles expressed in The Prince. Milgram’s work only buttresses Machiavelli’s acknowledgement of morality’s irrelevance in state affairs.
It has been noted by historians such as Federico Chabod that morals, being a nebulous, subjective body of standards, have no place in the cut-and-dried arena of politics. As a result The Prince lends itself not to the jurisdiction of ethics but the natural, barbaric truths by which men are wont to govern. Where The Prince offends pacifists with its open advocacy of authoritative, decisive action, Obedience shows with startling clarity just how easily man can be manipulated, endorsing the means Machiavelli describes to attain leadership under economic or social compulsion. It is at this conjecture where one might find a correlation between Obedience and The Prince.
Milgram heralds in his research subjects by describing the shocks the “teacher” will administer for incorrect answers: “Although the shocks may be painful, they are not dangerous.” This immediately evokes the observations of Machiavelli in Chapter Eight, in which he says that “Those (severities) may be called properly used, if of evil it is possible to speak well, that are applied at one blow and are necessary to one's security, and that are not persisted in afterwards unless they can be turned to the advantage of the subjects.” If a prince is unsure of himself, and lacks the conviction of modern science, then he will swiftly end in ruin, as did the would-be despot Oliveretto. This stems from the fundamental precept that people are drawn to confidence, a trait which must be magnified in an effective leader. A successful outcome of an experiment, whether in science or leadership, should not be eroded simply because it is deemed “unethical.” Failure to acknowledge this will inevitably result in destruction and instability.
The experimental video, while initially masquerading as a project on punishment’s effect on learning, reveals itself to pose a far more complex question. As the film continues, it is made known to the audience that the test is not, in fact, one of learning but of the capacity of man to take advantage of his personal autonomy and act according to his conscience in the face of seemingly legitimate authority. The outcome was bleak. While only one tenth of one percent were projected to have completed the orders to shock the “student” all the way up to 350 volts - owing to the interference of conscience - an appalling fifty percent of subjects executed the “punishment.” This occurred in spite of the shockers’ post-experimental exclamations that they had “wanted to stop” but the man in that, crisp, authoritative lab coat “wouldn’t let them.” While such declarations are fallacies at best, they expose the discrepancy in creed and action addressed in The Prince. Although not overwhelmingly positive, the result of The Prince has been to create strong leaders. This can largely be attributed to an idea from Chapter Fifteen of The Prince, where Machiavelli states, “…how we live is so far removed from how we ought to live, that he who abandons what is done for what ought to be done, will rather learn to bring about his own ruin than his preservation.” While many wishful thinkers entertain the notion that we as humans are, in fact, echelons above primates in conscience, it proves itself to be a tenuous belief. With the right amount of clout – such as Yale University’s or that of “science” – the complete dissolution of conscience occurs. Henry Wadsworth Longfellow’s advice to “be not like dumb driven cattle” is futile. We cannot escape human nature, and should we try, Machiavelli notes, we will ultimately be overrun by the masses. Obedience demonstrates the ease with which authority enervates conviction, as guilt transference from the subject to the test administrator unvaryingly resulted in completion of the task. But how can one differentiate between good and bad authority if both are potent? The result poses a paradox; as Machiavelli repeats ad nauseum in The Prince, a successful prince must be a promulgator of both benevolence and cruelty. The absence of skills in both will result in ruin for not only the ruler but the state.
Considering the weakness of man’s ability to stand by his principles, it is essential that leaders create themselves with what is most important to the endurance of a people in mind. Contrary to what many have been brought up to believe, this does not necessarily concern morality. Politics must be amoral or they will fail, ethics do not account for the innate weakness at the core of humanity. Instead, they place men on a pedestal of high-mindedness – even when their actions disappoint their creed. Machiavelli recognizes this, saying in Chapter Eighteen, “…it is necessary to be a great feigner and dissembler; and men are so…ready to obey present necessities, that one who deceives will always find those who allow themselves to be deceived.” Milgram scientifically proved that men are designed to obey. Machiavelli goes on to elaborate that “If men were good, this precept would not be a good one; but as they are bad, and would not observe their faith with you, so you are not bound to keep faith with them.” This simple logic is ironically similar to the religion it allegedly blasphemes: The Ten Commandments, bastion of morality, caution us to “do unto others” as we would have them do unto us. The way religion has been construed in the past, however, neglects to address the fact that humanity is, chiseled down to its essence, base. While Machiavelli had the courage to state this, Milgram had the conviction to prove it, offering up an inconvenient, daunting reality for modern humanity.