> If you object to the political methods recommended because they seem to you morally detestable, if you refuse to embark upon them because they are, to use Ritter’s word, erschreckend, too frightening, Machiavelli has no answer, no argument. In that case you are perfectly entitled to lead a morally good life, be a private citizen (or a monk), seek some corner of your own. But, in that event, you must not make yourself responsible for the lives of others or expect good fortune; in a material sense you must expect to be ignored or destroyed.
> In other words you can opt out of the public world, but in that case he has nothing to say to you, for it is to the public world and to the men in it that he addresses himself.
> Once you embark on a plan for the transformation of a society you must carry it through no matter at what cost: to fumble, to retreat, to be overcome by scruples is to betray your chosen cause. To be a physician is to be a professional, ready to burn, to cauterize, to amputate; if that is what the disease requires, then to stop halfway because of personal qualms, or some rule unrelated to your art and its technique, is a sign of muddle and weakness, and will always give you the worst of both worlds. And there are at least two worlds: each of them has much, indeed everything, to be said for it; but they are two and not one. One must learn to choose between them and, having chosen, not look back.
> There is more than one world, and more than one set of virtues: confusion between them is disastrous. One of the chief illusions caused by ignoring this is the Platonic-Hebraic-Christian view that virtuous rulers create virtuous men. This, according to Machiavelli, is not true. Generosity is a virtue, but not in princes. A generous prince will ruin the citizens by taxing them too heavily, a mean prince (and Machiavelli does not say that meanness is a good quality in private men) will save the purses of the citizens and so add to public welfare. A kind ruler—and kindness is a virtue—may let intriguers and stronger characters dominate him, and so cause chaos and corruption.
Your suggestion simply does not fit with anything I have ever seen or heard. I would be happy to see data suggesting that your idea is true instead. Care to cite a source?
That's interesting. I read a while back that psychopaths are not people who are completely devoid of empathy. Instead, they were defined as people who can control empathy. They can turn it on or off. They can turn it on when it suits them and turn it off when it would get in the way of achieving goals.
I doubt that. They may turn on and off the appearance of empathy. But real empathy* would not serve a psychopath too well.
I have an ex husband with some less than lovely personal traits. Genes being what they are, he passed a few on to our children. So I have long had a keen interest in understanding constructive uses for less than lovely traits.
My ex was a soldier who served his country for more than 2 decades and was honorably discharged. He is an honorable man. But he's not very warm-fuzzy.
* "Empathy has many different definitions that encompass a broad range of emotional states, including caring for other people and having a desire to help them..."
There's nothing inherently wrong with being a psychopath. The problem is that they tend to be extremely manipulative and selfish. Of course, if someone identifies "self" with some larger social project or humanistic goal, then manipulating people into achieving this goal can be an incredibly valuable skill.
"Of course, if someone identifies "self" with some larger social project or humanistic goal"
Such people can be the worst of all. They would have no compunction against mass slaughter. Utopianism in general has led to great evil because it is inherently unrealistic, and because it defines itself as the paramount good, surpassing all other goals, it can be used to rationalize very evil acts.
All of which underlines the false dichotomy of good and evil that Paulhus has been keen to probe.
For example, surgeons tend to lack empathy. People who are too empathetic would have a hard time cutting into someone. They would be too squeamish.
Soldiers are also a necessary and important role in the world where the work isn't "nice" in nature.