Inthis regard, I agree that Machiavelli’s statecraft is more“medicine” than “law” based on the way he presents hisprinciples to the world. This is because the Machiavellian principlesare not keen on the procedural concerns, but on the results thatrelate to what a person wants to achieve. In ThePrince,Machiavelli argues out the ways in which a can achieve what he needto do by all the means necessary. For instance, Machiavelli arguesthat success should be achieved by all the necessary means. Accordingto Machiavelli, as long as the prince does what his position requireshim to do.
Inaddition, Machiavelli argues out for the use of unkind means so as toachieve the goal of protecting or expanding a state. Such meansinclude the use of fear and cruelty as the necessary means by which aprince can achieve his missions. The implication of the principles isthat the end justifies the means for the rulers and politicians. Ifpeople adopt these principles, the law might be renderedinsignificant for rulers who believe that they are right in theirpursuit of control.
Machiavelliwould not agree with SheldonWolin thatpower is violence. Particularly, Machiavelli would not agree with thefact that SheldonWolin argues that it is naive to pretend that power is not violence.Machiavelli would disagree with SheldonWolin because he does not take violence as the only prerequisite togain power or maintain it.While Machiavelli advocates for cruelty and use of fear to gaincontrol and loyalty, he does not argue for violence as the ultimatesource of power. Machiavelli only argues for the attainment of powerby all the means necessary, violence included, but not as theprerequisite.
Ialso do not agree that power is equal to violence. This is becauseviolence is a means of getting into power or maintaining power, butnot the real power. In addition, I disagree because there are otherways of achieving power without the use of violence. For instance,democratic processes of coming to power are the main fundamentals ofgovernance in democratic countries. In rational terms, there is aline between the two in terms of the use of violence for power. Theline is drawn where violence should not be used unnecessarily to gainmore power or to cause destruction.
Machiavelli’s ThePrince is amoral.This is because in the treatise, Machiavelli presents principles andarguments that do not follow any principles of right or wrong ornorms. When giving guidelines for a successful or ideal prince in ThePrince,Machiavelli does not take any side, either morality or immorality. Hegives principles that are focused towards getting the work done orthe target achieved for political rulers. These principles are notinfluenced by either the morals or immorality.
WhileMachiavelli recognizes morals, he gives his principles withoutreference to what should be right or wrong. For instance, Machiavelliargues that the adherence to what is set by religion, humanity andthe society may not be beneficial to the prince. In addition, heargues that being generous as it is known to the society may injurethe prince. In this case, Machiavelli is neither standing for morals,nor advocating for immorality. This shows that Machiavelli presentsthe treatise from the amoral perspective.