As I understand it, virtues (arete in the Greek), are those behaviors that lead to right actions. The moral system supported by the Christian virtues is that which has been revealed by God. He has set the standard and made it known to us through the two books of revelation: nature and Scripture. Virtue, therefore, is commonly understood to be a characteristic or habit that is in accord with God's moral will for the universe.
Roman Catholic theology even identifies seven cardinal virtues, in contrast to the seven cardinal sins. They are understood to be the hinges of a Christian moral life. They are faith, hope, love, prudence, justice, temperance, and fortitude. Of these, three have been understood as being infused by God. That is, if we exhibit faith, hope, or love, it is because they have been given directly by God, not acquired by natural means. Be that as it may, it is obvious that the Christian is supposed to exhibit virtue and not its opposite, which is surely vice.
All this becomes less clear when one reads the works of Machiavelli. I've been re-reading The Prince, as maligned a piece of political commentary as was ever printed. Machiavelli's work, which is now the best part of 500 years old, has been described as the most cynical, self-serving justification for immoral behavior. It is not a direct attack upon Christian virtue. In fact Machiavelli appears to have been a sincere Christian, even though he was drawn to the resurgence of pre-Christian philosophy associated with the Renaissance. Furthermore, Machiavelli's aim is not personal morality but the body politic. He wants to understand how a leader needs to behave if he is to create and sustain a stable, peaceful society. To this end, he encourages Princes to exhibit what he calls virtu.
Virtu, taken from the Latin root vir, which means "man", describes the qualities required by a Prince or leader. In contrast to the Christian virtues, these qualities include a certain ruthlessness. A "good" (or, more properly "effective") leader does not not think of others before himself. He is not modest or self-effacing. He is bold. And he should convey this quality to the state or nation of which he is the head. An effective nation, one which promotes stability and banishes anarchy, deals violently and mercilessly with its opponents. It has no business entering into treaties or making agreements that may end up not being in its own best interest. And it should break treaties if this will serve its purposes best. There is no room for weakness in diplomacy. The strong win.
Classically, virtu had been understood very differently. Cicero, for example, wrote that " virtu consists especially of always acting honorably and morally, because honesty is the best policy." Machiavelli disagrees. He thinks it inconceivable that any ruler could actually be like that, in a world dominated by men who are not good, and survive for any length of time. In his opinion, an effective ruler will not be merciful. It's interesting that, for The Prince, Machiavelli used his experience of Cesare Borgia who was an unutterably cruel man, but also the ruler who finally brought peace and stability to the Romagna.
An effective leader, according to Machiavelli, will be willing to do what is morally wrong in order to achieve a political end. He will either use force (like a lion) or cunning (like a fox) in order to get his own way. And the truly great leader will know how to make his actions appear to be morally acceptable, in a Christian sense, while using all the tricks in the book in order to achieve his ends. These ends, however, must not be oppressive. They should lead to security and freedom within the bounds set by the state.
It's easy to see why Machiavelli was condemned so roundly by contemporary theologians, and why he has been so beloved by those who have advocated authoritarianism as a means to stability and peace. There are those who say exactly the same kind of thing today. On the one hand they complain that Christian moral concepts have no place in international politics, usually adding that religion is an essentially private business. But then they also claim that they are acting in the best interests of the people. Usually they layer their pronouncements with protestations about personal integrity and honesty. They are quick to deny that they are acting in self-interest. Are they simply being Machiavellian when they twist the truth to serve their own purposes? Should we expect modern Princes to exhibit the Christian virtues any more than Cesare Borgia did?
The problem is that virtu is fundamentally derivative. If everyone was dishonest then there would be no advantage in being economical with the truth. If it was expected that everyone would be totally self-interested and that they would ignore the needs of others, then the Borgias of this world would simply be those who held the most power. It would just be a matter of degree. But how would Cesare Borgia rule a country where everyone was dishonest? How would he establish the value of currency, or standardization in weight, for example? If everyone had his finger on the scale, then there would be no standards from which to deviate. The only thing left would be power, the ability to dominate another by violence, or the threat of it. Who would want to live in such a world?
So, when our politicians tell us that it is naive to expect Princes and nations to take note of the Christian virtues, we should not believe them. We should not mistake power or popular acclaim for legitimacy. A politician who delivers may be popular; he may exhibit Machiavellian virtu, but he will know nothing of virtue.
Even Christians can become unduly cynical when assessing politics and politicians. We are sometimes so frightened of anarchy that we look for human strength and influence in our leaders instead of moral integrity. But is it really possible that God will bless a nation which does not seek to live according to His will?
No comments:
Post a Comment