Introduction
The concept of virtue has attracted the attention of many scholars over the past several decades. The civilization brought with it an understanding that one’s action should not deliberately hurt others or cause harm to society. One should strive to hold high moral standards at all times and behave in accordance with what society expects (Aristotle 2014). However, it is important to note that socio-cultural and political differences make it difficult to have a universally acceptable way of determining whether an action is virtuous. In some parts of the world, it is normal and even encouraged of a man to have more than one wife. In other societies, such actions are considered immoral and unacceptable.
The differences in socio-cultural and political practices have created a scenario where what scholars and philosophers from one part of the world consider virtuous is significantly different from that of another group from a different society. It is also important to note that socio-economic changes that have been witnessed in society may also lead to such differences in the interpretation of the concept of virtue.
The role that women played 300 years ago and their position in society have changed significantly. In this argumentative essay, the focus is to compare and contrast Machiavelli’s view of virtue with that of Christine de Pizan. The researcher seeks to determine if Machiavelli means ‘virtue’ the same way as Christine or if he is radically opposed to her views. Thesis: Virtue, as defined by Niccolò Machiavelli, is significantly different from that defined by Christine de Pizan.
Discussion
In his book, ‘The Prince’, Niccolo Machiavelli defines specific traits that a prince must have as a person who is preparing to take over a state. He argues that the focus of the prince should be to gain the respect of his subject. In this book, the author argues that a successful prince should evoke love and fear in equal measure. In cases where he has to choose between the two, Machiavelli believes that it is better to be feared than to be loved (Machiavelli 2016).
In this book, one of the concepts that are prominently discussed is a virtue. In every society, there are a set of codes and standards that everyone must follow to ensure that there is a peaceful co-existence. Then there are personal attributes such as generosity, compassion, and piety that make a person admirable to society. These values are important for a prince to earn respect and authority in society, but Machiavelli insists that they are only relevant if they are consistent with the goal of protecting the state. The eye of the prince should always be on the state, and sometimes the end justifies the means (Machiavelli 2016).
Such radical arguments of Machiavelli have made many authors question what he really means by the concept of virtue in its very basic definition and how it should be applied. In this paper, his view of virtue will be compared and contrasted with that of Christine de Pizan, one of the greatest female philosophers in history. As such, the scholar has developed the following question to guide this argumentative essay.
Does Machiavelli sometimes mean “virtue” the way Christine means “virtue,” or is he radically opposed to her ideas?
Similarities in the Arguments
It is important to state that Machiavelli and Christine had varied views on different issues based on their written works, including on the issue of virtue and how it should be applied. However, the analysis of their works revealed various similarities, which are worth discussing. In his book, ‘The Price’, Machiavelli starts by explaining the significance of the prince being a wise man. As a person who is wise, one is expected to follow norms and practices of society, ensuring that they remain virtuous in their action. He argues that it is normal for people to imitate the actions of others. As a wise person, Machiavelli advises that a wise man should try and imitate great men who had high moral standards so that in the end, they will be judged fairly by society based on the path they take in life. He says,
“Since men almost always follow the paths trod by others, and proceed in their affairs by imitation, although they are not fully able to stay on the path of others, nor to equal the virtue of those they imitate, a wise man should always enter those paths trodden by great men and imitate those who have been most excellent, so that if one’s own virtue does not match theirs, at least it will have the smell of it” (Machiavelli 2016, 12).
The view is similar to that of Christine as presented in her book ‘The Book of the City of Ladies’ through her discussion with Lade Reason, Lady Rectitude, and Lady Justice. Directly challenging the inferiority of the position of women asset in society, she believes that people should be judged by their character, not gender. According to her, the city of ladies should have women who have the capacity to tell right from wrong and behave in a way that is expected of them in society. “The man or the woman in whom resides greater virtue is the higher; neither the loftiness nor the sex, but in the perfection of conduct and virtuous” (de Pisan, 1998, 31). She believes that both men and women should strive to achieve perfection in their acts. They should make deliberate efforts to ensure that they avoid engaging in activities that may offend others.
Analysis of the two books shows that Niccolo Machiavelli and Christine de Pizan had a similar view on the concept of virtue in terms of how a righteous person should treat those around them, especially when one is in a position of power. They both agree that modern society has no place for cruelty. When one has an opportunity to lead others, one should always be fair and avoid making decisions or actions that are considered cruel. Machiavelli said, “His vicious cruelty and inhumanity, along with numerous wicked deeds, do not permit us to honor him among the most excellent of men. One cannot, therefore, attribute either to Fortune or to virtue what he accomplished without either the one or the other.”
In this statement, he argues that when one gains power and embraces cruelty and inhumanity alongside numerous other wicked actions, society cannot honor them as excellent men. They will be remembered for their wicked actions because when they had the power and opportunity to do what society considers acceptable, they failed. Irrespective of the way in which one gained power, Machiavelli believes that nothing stops a man from being virtuous as a leader.
Cases may arise when one may be forced to make tough decisions, some of which may appear unpopular at the time when they are made. However, such decisions should be focused on protecting the state and members of society. They should not be self-centered about pleasing the leader and those close to them. It should be fair and in good faith. The same argument is shared by Christine when discussing with Lady Reason. “Those motivated by the infirmity of their bodies are cripples with misshapen bodies and crooked limbs. Their minds are malicious and sharp, and they have no other means of vengeance for the misery of their impotence than to blame those [women] who bring gladness to others” (de Pisan, 1998, 45).
Christine argues that virtuous men should not be motivated by the infirmity of their bodies when making important decisions that may affect women around them. Their position as men in society gives them the power to define the destiny of women, and as such, they should hold themselves to high moral standards. She describes men who allow them to be guided by the desires of their bodies as cripples who have misshapen bodies and crocked limbs (de Pisan, 1998).
They are mentally weak but have sharp malicious minds. Instead of creating a fair environment for everyone to flourish, they tend to blame women for their failures with the primary goal of impeding their growth and development. Such men do not find it reasonable to support women in their lives to achieve career success because they have a mentality that women should not gain power. In a just society where men and women embrace high standards of morality, there should be nothing wrong with having women in positions of power. Of interest should be what they do what they get to such powerful positions.
Christine believes that women who rise to power should not give men reasons to fight the idea of empowering women through their immoral actions. In the city of ladies, she argues that only those women of virtue can be allowed because they help in demonstrating to society that even if women are granted power, they will still act in ways that are beneficial to society.
Differences in the Argument
The discussion above has identified various similarities between Machiavelli’s and Christine’s views of the concept of virtue. However, it is important to note that a critical analysis of the two books also reveals major differences in the thoughts of these two philosophers. Machiavelli makes some radical shifts from what Christine views as virtuous practices that everyone should embrace. In his view, the prince should be careful when interpreting the meaning of the word virtue. One of the most radical arguments that Machiavelli puts forth in this book is that the end will always justify the means (Machiavelli 2016). While Christine emphasizes the need for one to be virtuous at all times, Machiavelli argues that the price should always make an effort to appear to be virtuous.
It is important to note that being virtuous and appearing to be virtuous is significantly different. Christine emphasizes the need for one to be virtuous but Machiavelli advises the prince that he should always ensure that he is seen as a man of virtue. In this case, the prince is allowed to deviate from the strict definition of virtue if doing so will be in the interest of the state. In fact, Machiavelli argues that it may be detrimental to the state if the prince acts virtuously for the sake of virtue. In an effort to behave in a morally acceptable way and to be compassionate and generous, Machiavelli argues that the price should prioritize the interest of the state.
In fact, he goes ahead and explains that a price may sometimes be forced to embrace vices such as dishonesty and cruelty if in so doing; it will be of benefit to the state. Machiavelli says, “It is easy to convince them of something, but difficult to hold them in that conviction. Therefore, affairs should be managed in such a way that when they no longer believe, they can be made to believe by force.”
In this statement, Machiavelli argues that it is easier for a leader to convince people over something, and as such, it may be necessary to be dishonest at times as long as one can justify why they lied at a later date. A person of virtue should not embrace lies, as Christine argues. Their integrity should start from what they say to what they do. Saying one thing and doing another is a sign of immorality and dishonesty according to her. “Because the subject seemed to me not very pleasant for people who do not enjoy lies, and of no use in developing virtue or manners, given its lack of integrity in diction and theme” (de Pisan, 1998, 48).
She argues that an immoral leader will start by using lies to ascend to power. Once they achieve their goals through deceit and other unscrupulous ways, they will be forced to use the same method to retain their power. They will have to tell a lie to hide the previous one or to justify it. Sometimes the lie may have significant implications that the leader may be forced to take actions that are greater in immorality than the lie they told. As such, she insists that one should not tolerate dishonesty at all. There is always another way of doing things the right way irrespective of the challenges that one may face in life. She advises that men and women should always choose the upright way.
Machiavelli, on the other hand, argues that a prince should be as cunning as a fox. When faced when a challenging situation where it may be necessary to lie or use force to succeed, he advises the prince to be dishonest if that will be in the interest of the state. “Hence it should be noted that, in conquering a state, its conqueror should weigh all the injurious things he must do and commit them all at once, so as not to have to repeat them every day” (Machiavelli 2016, 18). As shown in this statement, Machiavelli believes that when necessary, one can use injurious means to achieve a given goal. People may be hurt in the process and the prince will be subject to criticism, but that should not be deterrence when trying to achieve the set goal of conquering the state.
The main difference in the argument of these two philosophers is in the means through which one attains greatness and is considered as a person of virtue. According to Christine, men and women should embrace virtuous practices at every stage of their lives. Men should be fair to women and allow them to pursue their interests without unfairly judging them based on their gender. On the other hand, women should hold moral standards in society irrespective of their position. They should respect men and understand that they have specific roles to play in their lives. As such, Christine believes that the virtue of a person should be judged holistically, looking at both the means and the end.
Machiavelli argues that the means may not be as important as the end. Moral practices may change and sometimes one can explain and convince people that the decision they took was justifiable if the outcome of their actions is desirable. People tend to forget about the bad things that they did if the outcome is what many people expected. As such, a prince can use force, manipulation, and many other practices considered as lacking in virtue to ascend into power.
Once they are in power, they should use that opportunity to correct their wrongs. Machiavelli believes that it is almost impossible to please everyone in a setting where everyone is granted the freedom of having their opinion. When one tries to please everyone or to take into consideration the views of every member of the team, it may be impossible to make any meaningful progress. As such, what others will consider outrageous or a deliberate attempt to ignore their views, another section of the same community will consider acceptable and the only way of moving forward.
In the end, Machiavelli argues that the leader should find a way of bringing everyone together. The positive result should be evident for everyone to see. He is critical of trying to be strictly moral when the prince is focused on protecting the state because there is always the potential of failing. When the prince fails to secure the state, he will be judged based on the failure. People will forget that he failed because of his commitment to the high moral standards of society. As such, the prince should be judged based on his success even if it will be evident that along the path some actions failed to meet the moral standards of the society.
Conclusion
Niccolo Machiavelli and Christine de Pizan are some of the greatest philosophers who have weighed in on the concept of virtue. The analysis shows that they both share some views about the concept, but there are some radical differences too. The two philosophers believe that people should embrace high moral standards in their actions. One needs to ensure that their statements and actions do not cause harm to other members of society. However, the view of Machiavelli that the end will always justify the means is a radical shift from the view that Christine had. She believed that when judging the greatness of a person, both the means and the end should be considered. However, Machiavelli believed that the joy of success may make a brutal and unethical means acceptable.
Reference List
Aristotle. 2014. Nicomachean Ethics. Translated and edited by C.D.C. Reeves. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing.
de Pisan, Christine. 1998. The Book of the City Of Ladies. Translated and edited by Earl Jeffrey Richards and Natalie Zemon Davis. New York: Persea Books.
Machiavelli, Niccolò. 2016. The Prince. Translated and edited by Anna Karenina. Tustin: Xist Publishing.