The whole "ends justify the means" thing stirred up a lot of controversy, both then and now, but Machiavelli meant it in a very limited and specific context. N

The whole "ends justify the means" thing stirred up a lot of controversy, both then and now, but Machiavelli meant it in a very limited and specific context. Namely, that the ethics we apply to individuals do not necessarily apply in the same way to the "princes" who rule principalities. Machiavelli argued that well-being of a principality's people was of greater importance than the honour of its prince. For example, say you are a prince and your little city state signs a mutual defence pact with a neighbouring city that has been friendly for ages. That neighbour grows and prospers, and starts throwing its weight around. Another one of your neighbours, a small and weak one that has been your city's habitual enemy for ages, attacks your ally and friend. Your ally calls for your aid. What should you, as prince, do? The honourable prince aids his powerful friend in the coming war. His smaller neighbour is vanquished, his powerful friend becomes even more powerful and, as so often happens, turns it's eye upon his lands and invades. Against this powerful foe the honourable prince doesn't stand a chance. The devious prince swaps allegiances, allies himself with his smaller neighbour, takes down the big neighbour, and swallows up as much territory as he can in the process. Then he can deal with the smaller neighbour however he wishes, for the smaller neighbour is in no position to resist. This prince knows that you can't trust your friends, so take down anyone big enough to cause you harm when the opportunity presents itself. Do unto others first. The subjects of the honourable prince are invaded and miserable. The subjects of the devious prince profit. Who has best served the public good? This all sounds very hypothetical to us today but, for Machiavelli, this wisdom was the fruit of lived experience. Renaissance Italy really was that chaotic.