Niccolo Machiavelli's The Prince

"And if all men were good, this teaching would not be good; but because they are wicked and do not observe faith with you, you also do not have to observe it with them" (69). Niccolo Machiavelli's The Prince is arguably the most famous and controversial political science book of all time. Many think of Machiavelli as synonymous with evil.
The father of the idea that the ends will always justify the means, the term Machiavellian has become connected with selfish, brutal, or immoral actions. Machiavelli has long been associated with totalitarianism, conquest, and tyranny. But is this label deserved? Is The Prince a book that expresses evil? Many argue that Machiavelli is not a teacher of evil, but bases his teachings on a pragmatic realism
Correct policy within The Prince is based on the Machiavellian conception of virtue and prudence. Stemming from this, Machiavelli at times refers to virtue and prudence in their classical definitions, pertaining to high morality, and just actions. But at other times in The Prince, he refers to them as directly pertaining to the proper execution of power. For example he often compares a ruler's success, not morality, with virtue. No matter how brutal the ruler, if he is able to hold power well then he is virtuous. Prudence is thought of as being careful, observant and logical in the classical sense. But Machiavelli uses it to describe a ruler who is very sharp, decisive, and makes the correct choices. "A prudent lord, therefore, cannot observe faith, nor should he, when such observance turns against him, and causes that made him promise have been eliminated" (69). It therefore would be prudent for a ruler to massacre a rebellion, if it meant the ultimate preservation of power. In this case necessity calls for action, even if those actions go against classical morality. A ruler, who has correct judgment and knows what is the best course of action, would take the proper measures to stop the rebellion and pay no attention to the morality of his actions. The ends in this case change the conception of the codes in which the means are to be judged by;
The entire intent of the book was to write a pragmatic and realistic approach to dealing with power, not a lesson in high virtue and morality. He states, "But since my intent is to write something useful to whoever understands it, it has appeared to me more fitting to go directly to the effectual truth of the thing than to the imagination of it" (61). He finds that necessity is what guides most actions. "…[Because] men will always turn out bad for you unless they have been made good by a necessity"(95). A military training manual written on the best way to execute killing would not go into a debate on whether or not killing is right or wrong. The manual would be almost amoral and not go into the debate, those who have already settled that debate in their minds would read it, and the same follows for The Prince. One should not associate the teachings of The Prince as something that Machiavelli himself feels is moral, just and proper, but rather what history has shown to be the ideal and efficient way to handle power. Survivor in the political world creates certain necessities, and forces individuals to undertake certain actions in order to ensure success. "…[for] it is so far from how one lives to how one should live that he who lets go of what is done for what should be done learns his ruin rather than his preservation"