Machiavelli's Conception Of Virtu In A Princedom And Republic

1537 Words7 Pages
In both The Prince and Discourses on Livy, Machiavelli propels the notion of virtu and its importance in a Princedom and Republic. Virtu and it relationship with power also shows how critical virtu is. Furthermore, it could be argued that Machiavelli advocates a moral less world while others state that he does have morals. These writings do not distinguish between morality as a system of values and politics as a realm of technical skill. Machiavelli shows that the political sphere is a form of moral values. The values of morality upholded by Christianity cannot coexist in the realm of politics because the Pagan values Machiavelli preaches are at odds with each other. The morals (virtu) endorsed by Machiavelli were important in Pagan societies;…show more content…
Virtu and its significance cannot be downplayed and it is a part of having a good life. According to Machiavelli the possession of virtu is difficult at times to recognize, but it can be found. Moreover, the quality of skill is associated to virtu and in this context the skill used in political activity. A virtuous man is able to achieve his goals in political activity. Physical strength is also also a pivotal aspect, whether that be potential strength or an actual force. The usefulness of Virtu and realizing when and when not to use virtu is also critical. The context of virtu in both writings is hard explain fully and no definition I come up with will do it justice. Consequently, this leads to the special meaning of virtu, Defining virtu to a degree helps up to understand what Machiavelli valued and helps us to set up the moral standards of…show more content…
His concepts provide a source of praise and blame, and there is also good and evil. For example, the difference between Cesare Borgia and Agathocles provides a sense of morality. Both of these men obtained success, but the way in which Agathocles obtained success was seen as disloyal “his inhuman cruelty and brutality, innumerable wicked actions” (Machiavelli 1965, 29) since he killed his own friends and subjects in the pursuit of power. While Borgia had the corpse of Remiro d’Orco’s body “laid out in two pieces, with a chopping board and bloody knife beside it” (Machiavelli, 1995, 24) the way in which Borgia used his skill was seen as virtuous. For Borgia's actions showed his virtu and his actions were seen as just because they got rid of a vicious person. Both were successful but the methods in which they obtained it were different. The actions of Agathocles were seen as treacherous and no virtu was attributed to him, while Borgia was just and had virtu. This distinction shows that Machiavelli does indeed have morality, and that if the means though vicious lead to an end that benefits the common good then virtu can be

    More about Machiavelli's Conception Of Virtu In A Princedom And Republic

      Open Document