one can say this con general of men: they are ungrateful, disloyal, insincere and deceitful, timid of danger and avid of profit…. Love is verso bond of obligation which these miserable creatures break whenever it suits them preciso do so; but fear holds them fast by verso dread of punishment that never passes. (Prince CW 62; translation revised)
As per result, Machiavelli cannot really be said to have verso theory of obligation separate from the imposition of power; people obey only because they fear the consequences of not doing so, whether the loss of life or of privileges.
If I think that I should not obey a particular law, what eventually leads me to submit puro that law will be either a fear of the power of the state or the actual exercise of that power
Concomitantly, per Machiavellian perspective directly attacks the notion of any grounding for authority independent of the sheer possession of power. For Machiavelli, people are compelled esatto obey purely sopra deference puro the superior power of the state. It is power which in the final instance is necessary for the enforcement of conflicting views of what I ought esatto do; I can only choose not esatto obey if I possess the power esatto resist the demands of the state or if I am willing puro accept the consequences of the state’s superiority of coercive force. Machiavelli’s argument con The Prince is designed to demonstrate that politics can only coherently be defined durante terms of the supremacy of coercive power; authority as a right onesto command has per niente independent stato. He substantiates this assertion by reference sicuro the observable realities of political affairs and public life as well as by arguments revealing the self-interested nature of all human conduct. For Machiavelli it is meaningless and infruttuoso onesto speak of any claim onesto authority and the right onesto command which is detached from the possession of superior political power. The ruler who lives by his rights ombra will surely wither and die by those same rights, because in the rough-and-tumble of political conflict those who prefer power onesto authority are more likely puro succeed. Without exception the authority of states and their laws will never be acknowledged when they are not supported by verso esibizione of power which renders obedience inescapable. The methods for achieving obedience are varied, and depend heavily upon the foresight that the prince exercises. Hence, the successful ruler needs special preparazione.
3. Power, Bonta, and Fortune
Machiavelli presents sicuro his readers per vision of political rule allegedly purged of extraneous moralizing influences and fully aware of the foundations of politics mediante the effective exercise of power. The term that best captures Machiavelli’s vision of the requirements of power politics is castita. While the Italian word would normally be translated into English as “virtue”, and would ordinarily convey the conventional connotation of moral goodness, Machiavelli obviously means something very different coupon hornet when he refers to the pregio of the prince. Durante particular, Machiavelli employs the concept of pregio sicuro refer puro the range of personal qualities that the prince will find it necessary onesto acquire durante order puro “maintain his state” and esatto “achieve great things”, the two standard markers of power for him. This makes it brutally clear there can be niente affatto equivalence between the conventional virtues and Machiavellian lealta. Machiavelli’s sense of what it is to be a person of bonta can thus be summarized by his recommendation that the prince above all else must possess verso “flexible disposition”. That ruler is best suited for office, on Machiavelli’s account, who is trapu of varying her/his conduct from good onesto evil and back again “as fortune and circumstances dictate” (Prince CW 66; see Nederman and Bogiaris 2018).