Anda di halaman 1dari 9

Kevin Zhao

Professor Janara
Poli 340

From Earth to Heaven


Like Thucydides, Machiavelli keeps his feet firmly on the
ground and looks calmly at the inescapable miseries and evils of
human condition. Armed with extensive knowledge of the past and
numerous historical examples, he navigates his way through the
chaos and contradictions of human affairs to come up with the
practical way of governing and building a lasting society based on
the maximization of advantages. Augustine, after examining the
transience, grave evils and absurd injustice of the human world,
decides to look beyond the earth and build an image of an allknowing, morally perfect God and an incorruptible heavenly city
where humans can find lasting peace and happiness (Augustine,
p148). Because of their fundamental approaches in deal with the
imperfection of the earthly realm, Augustine and Machiavelli differ
sharply on their views of morality. In particular, Machiavelli upholds
a utilitarian notion of morality based on the imperative of doing
what the circumstance demands in the dangerous, uncertain earthly
realm while Augustine advocates an absolute concept of justice and
virtues that is free from human interference. Also, Machiavellis
emphasis on the influence of fortune on our lives tells us that we
have to sacrifice our moral integrity and adapt to the changing

conditions while Augustine argues that we should always remain


faithful and live dutifully according to Christian virtues because
there is one universal unchanging God that will provide everlasting
happiness for us in the afterlife.
In the book Prince, Machiavelli reveals himself as a thoroughly
pragmatic thinker who emphasizes the necessity of gaining power
and advantage in an unpredictable world that is consisted of a vast
majority of fickle, morally flawed individuals. The distrust that
Machiavelli shows for the morality of the populace is evident
throughout his writing. In the world that Machiavelli portrays in
Prince, most individuals are described as calculating, self-interested
and corrupt and therefore not worthy of being treated virtuously as
he writes, but since men are wicked and will not keep faith with
you, you need not keep faith with them (p54). Machiavellis
pessimistic view of human nature and morality can also be found in
his other book Discourses in which he remarks, men never do
anything that is good except when forced to (p93). This
Machiavellian world resembles that of the amoral Darwinian world of
struggle for survival where self-preservation is the only ultimate goal
and the standard by which we measure our successes and outcomes
of life. The ruler can choose either to adapt to the present conditions
of the world or perish. Morality is useful only in so far as it advances
the interest of the preservation of oneself or the society. For
Machiavelli, morality is equated with the imperative of selfpreservation because practicing moral virtues without compromises

does not work in a morally corrupt world and will only result in our
destruction. This argument is quite compelling and relatable to most
readers since our virtues depend upon the very condition that we
are kept alive and free from dangers that may threaten our life.
Machiavelli employs the word destroyed to highlight the primacy
of self-preservation in a society full of morally corrupt individuals. As
he writes, any ruler who relies simply on their promises and makes
no other preparations, will be destroyed (Machiavelli, 52). Both
politics and the state of nature operate on the same principle of
power, self-interest and survival in an anarchic world. Therefore, in
order to rule over people and preserve the existence of society, the
ruler has to rely more on cruelty rather than benevolence, fear
rather than love, and deception rather than honesty. Here
Machiavelli reveals himself as a highly utilitarian thinker who
advocates the so-called vices only to the extent that they are
beneficial for the preservation of the state and individuals. As
Machiavelli argues, the ruler should aim only to inspire fear among
the populace and always avoid hatred, which will cause his own
demise (Machiavelli, p53). Similarly, as Machiavelli shows in another
example, it is appropriate for a ruler to be moderately
compassionate by imposing cruelty on a few individuals and using it
as a deterrent, but excessive compassion will only cause disorder
and more harm than good (p51). Therefore, the maximization of the
happiness in a world where every action has a trade-off seems to
Machiavelli a sensible and morally justifiable principle. This is

related to his claim that we should always take actions that have the
fewest disadvantages (Machiavelli, p100).
On the other hand, the Christian philosopher Augustine, who is
more concerned with the absolute, eternal notion of virtues that can
only come from God, places less emphasis on the practical necessity
of self-preservation in this world. Augustine states that everyone
should live virtuously in this life, but we should only do so in
accordance with the Christian teaching and for the purpose of
attaining eternal goods in the afterlife (Augustine, p211). Unlike
Machiavelli who tries to confront and solve the problems of the
world diligently with practical solutions, Augustine, recognizing the
inherent insignificance of human striving and the vulnerability of
human morality, invents a heavenly city where men are
incorruptible and the good is everlasting. While Machiavelli admits
the fallibility of our moral characters and tries to manipulate them
for the advantage of ruler or the state, Augustine chooses to bypass
the messy state of human affairs in which the best and most
virtuous individuals can be corrupted. As Augustine asks, And who
is so utterly wise as to have no conflict at all with his lusts? (p145).
Therefore, Augustine can also be called a moral realist who
recognizes the irreparable state of human condition, but unlike
Machiavelli, looks to heaven instead for an answer. Specifically,
Augustine argues that since no human being has a moral character
strong enough to live virtuously, we need intervention from God who
can persuade us to voluntary poverty, continence, benevolence,

justice, concord, true piety and the other bright and powerful virtues
of life (Augustine, p211). Machiavelli is concerned that virtuous
rulers might suffer from evil or death when they are excessively
benevolent, but Augustine would respond that while preservation of
earthly goods including the life of mortal beings is important, the
end of life in this world is not the end of it all and we will gain
immortality and eternal happiness in the heaven. Augustine
remarks, only evil people obtain transitory and earthly goods and
only good people suffer the same kind of evils, then such a situation
could be referred to the judgment of God, which is just and even
kind (Augustine, p166). It can also be interpreted from Augustines
point that the fear that judgment of God creates in the minds the
people drives them to act more virtuously in this life so that they will
avoid eternal punishment. This is again a pragmatists view but
based on a religious and ideal premise. Furthermore, contrary to
Machiavellis belief in overcoming evil with evil, Augustine, being a
true Christian, advocates the Christian virtue of conquering evil with
benevolence so that the evil-doer will be afflict with guilt and repent
(Augustine, p207). Using the argument of a moral realist, Augustine
explains that the reason that we should return evil with good is for
the benefit of the earthly city, namely the earthly peace (p207). On
the contrary, Machiavelis emphasis on self-preservation does not
solve the problem of evil. Also, if we all choose to endure the evil we
suffered instead of seeking revenge, then our actions will contribute
to the increase in the number of good and the decrease in the

number of evils in our society (p208). This argument is quite


compelling and utilitarian in nature. Therefore, according to
Augustine, practicing benevolence can never harm us because it
contributes to the increase in earthly good in the long run and in the
chance of obtaining lasting heavenly good. In addition, the premise
of an all-powerful God and the day of judgment that Augustine
establishes implies that good people can live a virtuous life in
accordance with the commands of God without worrying about the
dangers that might cause the destruction of their lives because they
will receive eternal good from God in the afterlife. From the
perspective of Augustine, a ruler might lose power or his own life by
exercising excessive virtues, but he will be justly compensated in
the afterlife. What is important is not desire for security and power
in this life but faith in God. As Augustine succinctly puts it, in
action, no one ought to love honor or power in this life, because all
is vanity under the sun (159).
Machiavelli asserts that because the world is unpredictable
and fortune interferes with our plans, we have to adapt to our
environment, which means that we have to be ready to change our
character. He writes, and so, the cautious man, when it is time to
be headstrong, does not know how to act and is destroyed. But, if
one knew how to change ones character as times and
circumstances change, ones luck would never change (Machiavelli,
p107). Again, Machiavelli equates morality with utility and the
urgency of self-preservation. Augustine, on the other hand, argues

that the best way to live is to always hold on to ones belief in God
and truth and be willing to die for ones belief as he writes, the
latter, not resisting, were killed so that they might teach that dying
for faith in the truth is a preferable victory (Augustine, 224). This is
a proof of Augustines disdain for the perishable earthly good and
faith in the everlasting good in the afterlife. Morality is therefore for
Augustine a form of unconditional belief in an external power and
the exclusion of self, which is the polar opposite of Machiavellis
sense of morality that centers on self-preservation.
By comparing the two divergent views of morality of the two
thinkers, one might be likely to favor the more pragmatic argument
of Machiavelli because of its relevance to this world and our present
state here and now, but on a theoretical level, Augustines argument
seems to be more appealing as it vastly expands the boundaries of
our thoughts and possibilities that are not constrained by our
context. One has to note that Augustine is not encouraging
resignation and idleness in this life, because in his philosophy, one is
required to live virtuously in this life in order to attain heavenly
good. Augustine is only opposed to earthly good when people see it
as an end in itself. As he writes, Godgave to mankind certain
goods suitable for this life (p155). Although Machiavellis notion of
utilitarianism and preparation for the caprice of fortune are practical
and compelling, his philosophy remains grounded in this imperfect
human world, which for Machiavelli is an end in itself since he sees
nothing outside of it. As a result, trapped under the myopic

struggles for power and the darkness of our earthly world, we find
our sense of morality vulgarized and we become incapable of seeing
the nobility of perfection. On the other hand, the humane and
morally uplifting philosophy of Augustine can be seen as a source of
consolation and hope for all the poor, downtrodden and forgotten
people of the earthly world who may one day receive eternal
prosperity and happiness in the heavenly city. The moral purity and
perfection of God can serve as a source of inspiration for individuals
who wishes to emulate his boundless virtues, which can over time
lead to an increase in the number of good individuals and peace,
thereby accomplishing the same goal as the plan of Machiavelli. As
Augustine remarks, if it is said, honor your father and your
mother, God commands it (Augustine 136). The power of authority
God projects therefore compels us to live dutifully and virtuously.

Bibliography
Machiavelli, Niccolo. Selected Political Writings: edited and
translated by David Wootton. Hackett publishing company.
Augustine. Political writings: translated by Tkacz. Hackett publishing
company.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai