INTRODUCTION

Niccolò Machiavelli
 One of the most prominent Italian writers and theorists of the Renaissance.
 Greatest works: The Prince, The Art of War, and Discourses of Livy.
 His theories are marked with strong meaningful statements that have stood through
centuries. 'The ends justify the means' and 'it is better to be feared than be loved'
are two such quote that have never lost their vigor.
Life of Machiavelli
 Entered public service at 29 and served as diplomat for 14 years in Italy's Florence
Republic.
 Lost his job when the republican government was replaced by the absolutist regime
of Medici
 Accused of serious crimes and tortured
 Found to be innocent and banished to his small farm near Florence
 Led to the writing of The Prince in 1513.
THE PRINCE
 Based on his own personal experiences as a diplomat and also his readings of ancient
history
 He gives us a lot of historical examples of individuals and actions worthy of
imitation to outmaneuver rivals.
 About how new Prince can gain and hold new territory through any means- moral or
immoral. Hence, the quote “The ends justify the means”
 Until Machiavelli’s writing, most philosophers of politics had defined a good leader as
humble, moral and honest. Machiavelli shed that notion, saying frankly, “It is better
to be feared than loved, if you cannot have both.”
THE CONCEPT OF FORTUNE AND VIRTÙ
1. Virtù
 Latin word that refers to masculine strength.
 the personal qualities that a prince will find it necessary to acquire in order to
“maintain his state” and to “achieve great things”
 It includes the individual’s strength, skills, ingenuity, determination or
ability (Jurdjevic, 2014).
 It includes the prince’s capability to control the situation at hand, even if it
means acting immorally.
 Leaders must be flexible, which means that they have to oscillate between
being evil and good if the outcome is for the general good (Machiavelli, 2010).
 2. Fortuna
 Fortuna, luck or fortune, was derived from Classical Roman mythology,
where she was often portrayed in a positive light. Though she was fickle and
uncertain, she was also the bringer of good luck and abundance, and one of her
symbols was an overflowing cornucopia (horn of plenty).
 Refers to all of those circumstances which human beings cannot control, and
in particular, to the character of the times, which has direct bearing on a
prince's success or failure.
Illustration of the Conceptual Link between Virtù and Fortuna through the case two
princes, Francesco Storza and Cesare Borgia, who became princes through two
different avenues.
A. Francesco Storza became a prince out of his effort and was able to keep power (Ridolfi
2013).
 He used Virtù, or his efforts, to maintain his power.
B. Cesare Borgia became a prince because of his father’s input. Nevertheless, Cesare
Borgia was unable to maintain his position of power for long.
 Cesare became a prince by luck or fortune due to his father, the Duke of
Romania. Meaning, he was the next in line. But, failed to keep his power
due to indecisiveness, poor judgment, or lack of virtù.
Thus, this indicates that fortune requires virtue in order to sustain positive results.
Machiavelli stated that virtù is wasted if there is no opportunity, and opportunity is wasted
if there is no virtù, Machiavelli implies that there is some kind of cooperation between the
two forces—they cannot operate independently.
Moreover, Machiavelli argued that individuals who seek power by exercising their
ability experience significant difficulty in attaining it but have the capacity to easily
maintain it. Conversely, individuals who gain power through fortune but have are not
virtuous experience difficulty in maintaining it.
Machiavelli identifies the likes of Romulus, Cyrus, Moses and Theseus as some of
the individuals who succeeded in establishing strong kingdoms. The ability of these
individuals to rise to be princes was not as a result of fortune.
For example, Romulus was abandoned at birth so that he could become the King of
Rome while Cyrus could not have become a prince if he had not identified the Persians
dissatisfaction with the Medes government (Machiavelli 2010). The situation faced by these
parties indicate that they did not become great and admirable by fortune but out of their
virtuous character in exercising power. Thus, one can argue that their success was as a
result of exercising virtue, which enabled them to successfully take advantage of the
opportunities. This underlines the fact that the concept of virtue and fortune
complement each other.
Other Examples implying that the ends justifies the means.
1. Cheating during an exam to pass the exam.
 Means: Cheating
 End: Pass the exam

2. Lying to your parents to have extra allowance.

 Means: Lying
 End: Extra Allowance

3. Killing a person to win the election.

 Means: Killing
 End: Win the Election

4. Stealing to help the poor.

 Means: Stealing
 End: Help the Poor

SO DOES THE ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS? READ ME!

In Machievelli’s perspective, the ends justifies the means. Meaning, whatever means
use, either moral or immoral, is accepted to pursue a goal, outcome, or an end.
However, in Christian Ethics, both the ends and the means must always be pure. Basically,
the act is good if the means and ends are good. Good in a sense that it is inclined to the moral
standards of the person’s beliefs.
Thus, if we take Machiavelli’s perspective in ethics, then, the use of immoral acts to
pursue an outcome is ethically wrong.

But, there are special considerations that we can say that Machiavelli’s perspective
of using immoral act to achieve an end can be ethically right.
In an ectopic pregnancy, the Doctor will remove the embryo from the fallopian tube
to prevent life-threatening bleeding and even death to the mother. The act of removing the
embryo is immoral since it is the act of killing a being. But, the outcome of saving the mother
is morally good. Since the means is immoral, then, it is unethical.
However, the act of saving the mother through killing the embryo is ethically right
under the DOCTRINE OF DOUBLE EFFECT. This doctrine says that if doing something
morally good has a morally bad side-effect it's ethically ok to do it providing the bad side-
effect wasn't intended. So, based on the example given, since an ectopic pregnancy is a
complication, then killing the embryo for the survival of the mother is considered
unintended. Thus, implying that the end justifies the means.

William Ockham
Life of William Ockham
- William of Ockham was born around 1285 in the small village of Ockham in Surrey, England,
although nothing is known of his parents or his early life before he joined the Franciscan order
(probably in London) at the age of fourteen.
- As a Scholastic, Ockham was strongly committed to the ideas of Aristotle, and advocated reform
both in method and in content, the main aim of which was simplification.
- Ockham was a pioneer of Nominalism, and he argued strongly that only individuals exist (rather
than supra-individual universals, essences or forms), and that universals are the products of
abstraction from individuals by the human mind and have no extra-mental existence..
- He certainly believed in immaterial entities such as God and angels. He did not believe in
mathematical (“quantitative”) entities of any kind
- For Ockham, the only truly necessary entity is God; everything else, the whole of creation, is
radically contingent through and through.
- “Ockham’s Razor,” often expressed as “Don’t multiply entities beyond necessity.”
- One important contribution Ockham made to modern science and modern intellectual culture
was his principle of ontological parsimony in explanation and theory building, which has become
better known as "Occam's Razor" or "Ockham's Razor".

Divine Command Theory

- The belief that what’s moral, and what’s immoral- is commanded by the divine
- In Ockham’s view, God does not conform to an independently existing standard of goodness;
rather, God himself is the standard of goodness. This means it is not the case that God commands
us to be kind because kindness is good. Rather, kindness is good because God commands it.
- The Divine Command Theory solves the grounding problem. Every ethical needs some kind of
foundation, and with the Divine Command Theory, it’s GOD.
- Divine Command Theory addresses many of our biggest questions about right and wrong, which
is why it’s the ethical theory of choice for much of the world.

Euthyphro Dilemma
- It questions the nature of the Divine Command Theory
- It is originally by Plato as a dialogue between Socrates and Euthypro
Point 1: Is it that which is morally good, good, because God commands it.
Point 2: Does God command it because it is morally good.

Simple version of the arguments and a counter argument based on the absurdity of accepting
whatever a deity would command as being good just because it was so commanded:
Argument for the Divine Command Theory
1. God created the universe and everything in it, including human beings.
2. If God created human beings, then God has an absolute claim on our obedience.
3. If God has an absolute claim on our obedience, then we should always obey God's commands.
4. Therefore, the Divine Command theory is true.

Argument against the Divine Command Theory -

1. If the Divine Command theory is true, then we should always obey God's commands, no matter
what they are.
2. If we should always obey God's commands, no matter what they are, then we should do so
even if God were to command us to commit atrocities, such as to create as much pain among
innocent children as possible.
3. It is absurd to think that we should create as much pain among innocent children as possible,
even if God were to command us to do so.
4. Therefore, the Divine Command theory is not true