42 Lucy Vogel – Do the Ends Justify the Means?

Lucy Vogel is a Senior from Virginia and this essay was written for an upper-level classical political philosophy course she took in the Spring 2024 semester. Through this course, she was introduced to the some ‘greatest hits’ in political philosophy and loved them. She hopes her work captures a snippet of the intricacy and wisdom of their works.  Professor Michael Uhall praised Lucy’s work stating, “The four papers I assign in this course (in addition to other assignments) afford students some flexibility in terms of what they choose to write about. Broadly speaking, they are to compare and contrast the political philosophies of two of the canonical figures we study in-depth in the course. Lucy wrote an excellent paper comparing Machiavelli and Plato, which was accurate and well-written, but she also used a complex reading of the popular television show Better Call Saul to illustrate some of the differences and parallels between the figures. Her grasp of both Machiavelli and Plato in the course was very good, and the paper more than adequately illustrates that. It was also engaging and fun to read, and it demonstrates her ability to relate complex texts, normative implications, and principles of interpretation.”

Do the Ends Justify the Means?

Better Call Saul  is the prequel to Breaking Bad, and it follows the life of Jimmy McGill (also known as ‘Saul Goodman’) before he meets Walter White. Jimmy McGill (like many of the characters in the Breaking Bad universe) makes poor moral decisions. (He is a lawyer, so one could argue that his abuse of the law is more destructive or egregious than a drug dealer’s abuse of an abandoned street corner.) In season two: episode four, his brother Chuck McGill (the embodiment of a rule-bound lawyer) says, “See, that’s your problem, Jimmy, thinking the ends justify the means” (26:51-26:54, Better Call Saul). This is an allusion to Machiavelli, and his infamous concept that a ruler’s actions justify desirable means. The question that many have tried to answer is, “Do the ends justify the means?” Is it better to rule without honor, but rule well?

Machiavelli

Niccolo Machiavelli lived during one of the most turbulent times in European history, and the instability of the ruling world prompted him to write The Prince to the new prince. One could argue that in Machiavelli’s eyes stability was needed, and he believed his way of ruling would have brought that. Now Machiavelli does not claim that his text should be one’s moral compass. He does not aim to deceive or mislead his followers; in fact, in Chapter XV he states: “Hence it is necessary for a ruler who wishes to maintain his position to learn to be able to be not good, and to use that ability or not use it accordingly to necessity” (Machiavelli, 2019/ 1532, pg. 53). In this line, Machiavelli clearly states that he believes that rulers cannot be good all the time.

Throughout his text he explains when and why rulers must be able to adapt to their surroundings. For example, in Chapter XVIII he writes that one must be cunning like a fox “to recognise traps” and strong like a lion to “frighten away wolves” (pg. 60). Foxes are not known for their honesty and good character; the fox is known to be sly, smart, and mischievous. Lions, on the other hand, symbolize the opposite. Lions are strong; they are respected kings, and one knows not to anger the king of the jungle. Machiavelli believes that a ruler must be both. Sometimes, it is best to rule with strength, like when conquering another nation. Other times, one must listen and be cunning, like the fox. In the same chapter, Machiavelli states: “In these matters, most men judge more by their eyes than by their hands. For everyone is capable of seeing, but few can touch you. Everyone can see what you appear to be, whereas few have direct experience of what you really are, and those few will not dare to challenge the popular view…” (pg. 61). This line illustrates that rulers must appear strong and noble, like the lion, and sometimes they may have the pleasure of acting that way, but they will be forced to deceive like a fox too. What matters most is not how one actually is. What matters most is how one appears to be. To create this perfect appearance, one has “to know how to enter upon evil if that becomes necessary” (pg. 61).

While Machiavelli calls for a ruler to be bad at times he does not wish for a truly bad man to rule. In Chapter VIII, he discusses why one should not rise to power through crime. He states: “Yet it cannot be called virtue to kill one’s fellow-citizens, to betray one’s friend, to be treacherous, merciless and irreligious, power may be gained by acting in such ways, but no glory” (pg. 30). Furthermore, he states that when a prince conquers a new city he should inflict all the injuries at once, so the people know when the injuries are done and can feel “safe” (pg. 33). A ruler who continues to inflict injury is timid and/or lacking poor judgment, and both of these qualities make for a poor ruler. In this chapter, one can clearly see that Machiavelli has standards for rulers. It is true that his standards differ from others’, but he does not wish for sociopathic men to rule and inflict never-ending injury.

Plato

Plato, unlike Machiavelli, intends for his works to be philosophical guides on morality. He understands that the “hypothetical city” (Plato, 2000/ 380 B.C., para. 592b) or the wise philosopher may never come to fruition. Plato concedes that people may never leave the cave, and that the “philosopher would be like a man falling into a den of wild animals, refusing to join their vicious activities, but too weak to resist the combined ferocity single-handed” (para. 496d). However, even with this knowledge Plato still believes that it would be best for a king to be wise and just. This is one of the core concepts of Plato’s Alcibiades Major. In this text, he states that  rulers cannot (and should not) rely on their “natural abilities” (Plato’s Alcibiades Major, n.d., pg. 576). A ruler should be wise and self-aware, and he should not rely on his charism, connections, wealth, status, etc., to propel him into the political and ruling world. In Plato’s Republic, he states that injustice is “never more profitable than justice” (para. 354a), and “the just man is like the wise and good man, and the unjust man is like the bad and ignorant” (para. 350c). In these lines, Plato is arguing that injustice will never be profitable; it makes one “bad”, “ignorant”, and an “enemy of the gods” (para. 352b), and this will never be profitable. In Plato’s mind, it would be better to see the light and be disconnected from the dark, ignorant cave-world (Book 7), than it would be to be a powerful mighty ruler.

The Court Will Now Hear the Case of Plato v. Machiavelli

Plato and Machiavelli differ greatly. For example, Machiavelli believes that a leader may have to be “bad”, “deceptive”, or “evil” at times (Chapter XVIII) to succeed in ruling. Whereas Plato believes that injustice is never profitable, and therefore a ruler should never be bad. Additionally, Plato believes that one should not rely on their “natural abilities” to rule. Machiavelli believes that one must create an appearance of popular approval. Crafting this appearance may force one to partially rely on their natural charisma or personal connections. This is the core difference between them, and this core difference can be seen in more tangible examples too. For instance, Machiavelli believes that once a prince has conquered a city he must caress or crush the citizens because “they can avenge slight injuries, but not those that are very severe” (Machiavelli, 2019/ 1532, pg. 9). (In all likelihood, leaders will not have time to “caress” newly conquered land, and they will choose the latter). Contrasting this view, Plato believes that when one conquers a city, he should not burn the houses and lay waste (Plato, 2000/ 380 B.C., para. 470a-b); a king should “take only the current year’s crop” (para. 470b) because it would be unpatriotic for Greeks to harm other Greeks. Following this line of logic, would it not be harmful for Europeans to conquer other Europeans during Machiavelli’s time? It would be harmful, and it would result in what Plato would call an unpatriotic-abomination. In these two examples, one can see that Plato and Machiavelli approach the character of a leader and how one should rule differently.

The two may seem like opposites, but they have a few similarities. Both men value education. Plato’s Alcibiades Major and Plato’s Republic clearly illustrate his support of an educated leader, not merely a wise (which is different from educated) or just ruler. In Chapter XIV of the Prince, Machiavelli states that a ruler should “study” (pg. 51) and familiarize himself with his land via exploration and exercise (pg. 9). It is not surprising that the two men value education; they were both philosophers, and they both believed that humans are inherently flawed and lacking in natural born wisdom. In Book 7 of Plato’s Republic, he reveals that he believes that most people are “in the dark”, meaning they are not enlightened and they do not wish to see the light. Similarly, Machiavelli states, “this may be said of men generally: they are ungrateful, fickle, feigners and dissemblers, avoiders of danger, eager for gain” (pg. 57) –  which is why it is better to be feared than loved. The two men share many differences, such as how one should approach a conquered city or if one should ever be bad, but their ideas overlap too; this illustrates that Machiavelli’s work, while more extreme than Plato’s, is not ridiculous or irrational.

Conclusion

Plato’s ruler is a better person, but Plato admits at the end of Book 9 that his “hypothetical city” (para. 592a-b) does not exist on earth, and in a world of beasts or wolves a philosopher-king would be murdered or voted out of office (or both). In contrast, a Machiavellian ruler has a better chance of succeeding because he will not appear weak. He understands that one should not rise to power through unsavory means, but that a ruler cannot be good all the time. This ruler, while not the best role model, will succeed in protecting his city from threats. Is this not the primary job of a ruler?

Machiavelli has been painted as an evil man because he calls for a ruler to be bad when a situation calls for it, and in a perfect world this would be irrational and unheard of. But we do not live in a peaceful utopia; we live in a world of wolves, and a ruler may have to be cunning like a fox to protect his people, or he may have to strike down enemies like the lion. His actions may not always be moral, but a “good” ruler would be like a man in a den of beasts. The world would be a better place if war was never waged, if bombs were never dropped, if cities were never invaded, but that will not change. If a ruler cannot protect his city, then he fails his citizens. Was Truman’s decision to drop the atomic bombs good? Was it moral? Was it just for him to rain hell on the Japanese and to release that technology into the world? Did the ends justify the means? Maybe, the answer to all of those questions is “no”, but at the end of the day one must remember that Japan was stopped and the war ended there.

Works Cited

Gilligan, V. (Lead Writer), and Gilligan, V. (Director). (Episode Air Date 2016, March 7). Gloves Off. [Television Series Episode]. In Gould, P. (Executive Producer), Better Call Saul. Culver City, CA: Sony Pictures Television.

Machiavelli. (2019). The Prince Second Edition. (Q. Skinner and R. Price, Ed. Cambridge University Press.  (Original work published 1532 A.D.).

Plato. (n.d.) Alcibiades Major.

Plato. (2000). The Republic. (G.R.F. Ferrari, Ed). (T. Griffith, Trans). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published  380-375 B.C.)