The Ends Justify the Means

Machiavelli's The Qualities of the Prince

Lorenzo Bartolini's
Facade of the Uffizi Gallery,
depicting Niccolò Machiavelli 

In The Qualities of the Prince, Machiavelli presents the underlying theme that the ends justify the means. This idea subverts conventional morality, suggesting that if the results of one’s actions are “good,” it does not matter if the actions taken to receive that result are “bad.” This invites a discussion of morality as a whole and what exactly one defines as good and bad, right and wrong. 

Machiavelli claims that the ends allowing for immoral means are those ends that lead to continued power for the prince. He suggests that anything is permissible if it leads to continued rule and reign. This could be considered selfish since it suggests that immoral actions become moral when they lead to self-benefit. However, this chiefly depends on the prince's intentions, which Machiavelli does not delve into. The end to Machiavelli’s suggested means does not extend beyond maintaining power. However, continued control is not a realistically satisfying end. People want to do something with the power that they have earned, and it is here that the question of selfishness receives an answer.

If the prince, like Machiavelli, acts immorally solely for the gain of power and selfish ambition, then his immoral means lead only to immoral ends. However, suppose the prince plans to utilize the power he gains through immoral actions to benefit general society and those he rules over. In that case, his immoral means may lead to moral ends. The issue of whether the ends justify the means depends not on what the means are, but on what the ends are. 

However, the unfortunate reality of this scenario is that despite any immoral means a prince might enact, he cannot guarantee any end. He may act in entirely immoral ways, only to fail to gain power or fail to utilize it in a way that benefits others. In this case, he has acted immorally and likely caused many grievances, to no end. How can the ends justify the means if one cannot guarantee the end? Despite all intentions of reaching an end that allows one the power to reimburse any damage his means have caused, one has no guarantee that he will ever reach those ends. In this way, by choosing to enact unworthy means with the goal of a worthy end, a prince runs the risk of deeply harming those around him and never receiving an outcome that might justify it. 

Machiavelli presents the example of “the present King of Spain,” Ferdinand V, who “if he had been considered generous, would not have engaged in nor won so many campaigns.” Ferdinand acted as a miser and restricted his generosity to maintain power and expand his control, with the intent of expanding Catholicism and rescuing lost souls. As far as he was concerned, he was utilizing selfish means to gain a noble and generous end, hoarding his wealth to gain power, to help others find salvation. However, Ferdinand ultimately did not have control over the ends to his means, and in his careful spending, he ended up funding the genocide of millions of Native Americans, despite acting with conventionally good intentions. He enacted immoral means, aiming for a moral end that he could not guarantee, and was left with a doubly immoral reputation. 

Overall, while there may be circumstances in which the mutually beneficial ends of immoral means could be justified, a prince does not have the guarantee of any good end and therefore cannot risk leaving behind only immorality.