Machiavelli's advice for nice guys

Just a few thoughts, I hope you find them worthy.
First, I would like to encourage you to contemplate the Mahatma's statement that an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind. Isn't that precisely what is ultimately at issue in the doctrine of peace through superior firepower?
Second, if the good adopt the methods of evil, how are the "good" any different from what they "oppose"? Embracing violence and pain as a "necessary means to an end" only corrupts the end achieved.
Does avoiding violence at all costs mean one is a coward? Was Gandhi a coward when he made salt? Was Martin Luther King Jr. a coward when he marched in Birmingham? Was Sargeant Alvin C. York a coward when he took command of his broken and nearly defeated companions to take 132 German soldiers prisoner in WWI without killng a soul? They shed no blood and never bowed to violence's siren call of "ease". Does this mean they were cowardly because they would not use the methods of cruelty, violence, and terror?
I agree that sometimes the triumph of evil seems unavoidable if one applies the methods of peace, but this ignores the fact that we as a species DO NOT WANT the triumph of evil. At some point it becomes a matter of statistics and what the masses will tolerate before they snap and collectively say "we deplore violence and evil, but we deplore YOU a whole lot more. YOU GOTS TO GO!"
Yes, evil means may produce immediate gains, but they also place one into a shadow category of being a de facto psychological and social outcast. It places one outside the reach of compassion and ultimate communion with one's fellows. It slays the peace of mind that allows trust and forges friendship and the actual love and acceptance that humans don't simply crave, but require to maintain sanity. The genuine burden of power is not that one has the ability to affect change for good or ill, but that such ability by necessity separates one from their fellows. It has been said "lonely is the head that wears the crown" and it is true because every crown is built upon blood, exploitation, and suffering. Who could fail to bow underneath such a burden of misery? And further, why would we not want them to?

There have been some excellent responses here, and they have got me thinking about the subjectivity of "good" and "evil".

As the example from Gandhi's answer about WWII and pacifism shows, there is a price to pay using either pacifist or aggressive approaches. Since "good" and "evil" are subjective terms, we end up weighing the pros and cons of any action based on the greater good. Each country based their actions on what they believed would be best for their citizens. What was overlooked is that we often forget to examine the same actions of each country based on common good. There is an important distinction here.

Greater good is that which benefits a majority of the community. Common good is that which benefits everybody. Gandhi's answer to the Axis Powers question tells us he believes violent war may in fact have been better for the greater good because it cost fewer lives than a pacifist resistance may have in the long run. But when we explore this question as it applies to the common good, the answer different. WWII was not good for any of the countries involved if we consider it based on lives lost. Using this measurement, the war harmed the world community as a whole, so while it achieved the goal of greater good, it failed at achieving the goal of common good because peace is preferable to war when it comes to lives lost. While pacifist non-violent resistance may have cost more lives in the long run, it better achieves the common good because it is more desirable to the world community as a whole when compared to world war. So in this sense, it can be said that if Machiavelli's preparation for war actually prevents war and results in a lasting peace, it is better for the common good. Whether that is the case or not is where the debate begins.

This same question gets asked about the use of atomic weapons by the U.S. to end WWII. While it has been argued that it resulted in the greater good of ending the war and saving the lives of hundreds of thousands of soldiers and civilians who would die in an ongoing conflict, it did not result in the common good as it involved killing hundreds of thousands of civilians in Japan and introduced the specter of nuclear warfare to the world. As a result, the U.S. was praised in the short term for ending the war, but suffered long term condemnation lasting to this day for being the only nation to use nuclear weapons against largely civilian targets.

So, should the U.S. have been a "nice guy" like the pacifist Gandhi and used non-violent resistance to Japan's invasion of China and the South Pacific for many years, or did the more Machiavellian approach of waging and ending the war more quickly with acts of extreme violence make more sense? I think the attack on Pearl Harbor had a lot to do with motivating the U.S. decision, so we'll likely never find an answer that makes any real sense.

EmptyVessel wrote: Just a few thoughts, I hope you find them worthy.
First, I would like to encourage you to contemplate the Mahatma's statement that an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind. Isn't that precisely what is ultimately at issue in the doctrine of peace through superior firepower?
Second, if the good adopt the methods of evil, how are the "good" any different from what they "oppose"? Embracing violence and pain as a "necessary means to an end" only corrupts the end achieved.
Does avoiding violence at all costs mean one is a coward? Was Gandhi a coward when he made salt? Was Martin Luther King Jr. a coward when he marched in Birmingham? Was Sargeant Alvin C. York a coward when he took command of his broken and nearly defeated companions to take 132 German soldiers prisoner in WWI without killng a soul? They shed no blood and never bowed to violence's siren call of "ease". Does this mean they were cowardly because they would not use the methods of cruelty, violence, and terror?
I agree that sometimes the triumph of evil seems unavoidable if one applies the methods of peace, but this ignores the fact that we as a species DO NOT WANT the triumph of evil. At some point it becomes a matter of statistics and what the masses will tolerate before they snap and collectively say "we deplore violence and evil, but we deplore YOU a whole lot more. YOU GOTS TO GO!"
Yes, evil means may produce immediate gains, but they also place one into a shadow category of being a de facto psychological and social outcast. It places one outside the reach of compassion and ultimate communion with one's fellows. It slays the peace of mind that allows trust and forges friendship and the actual love and acceptance that humans don't simply crave, but require to maintain sanity. The genuine burden of power is not that one has the ability to affect change for good or ill, but that such ability by necessity separates one from their fellows. It has been said "lonely is the head that wears the crown" and it is true because every crown is built upon blood, exploitation, and suffering. Who could fail to bow underneath such a burden of misery? And further, why would we not want them to?

this is a nice sentiment and i do respect where youre coming from

all violence isnt equally unethical - the one defending themselves from the invader is not on the same moral footing as the one doing the invading

below is a video compilation of home invasions.
its not an easy video to watch and you may not be ready for it, but if you think you can handle it, watch it and ask yourself if youd rather be the victim who fought back, or the one who couldnt



heres a wikipedia article on how the japanese treated their prisoners

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes

coming as they did from a warrior culture with a long military tradition that placed an extremely high value on strength, the ability to use violence, and the refusal to surrender to an enemy, the japanese were not kind to those they conquered

and i assume everyone is familiar with the way that the nazis treated the jews

just for extra credit, heres an article on how communism kills the peoples of its own nations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes

the limitation of pacifism is that it allows the most brutal and savage people to take charge and have their way

pacifists must either be protected by the ethically violent, or else submit to the whims and excesses of the unethically violent

watching the video will give you a glimpse into what i mean when i say "the whims and excesses of the unethically violent"

Many members of our race have never had to face an unbounded oppression in their lives. They have never had to make the choice between passivity and taking up arms to protect their sovereignty or the sovergnty of their nation and way of life. Those that tout a passive resistance can be just as effective as an active resistance should feel blessed that those of us that are willing to take up arms and commit acts of violence against those that would oppress us exist. Without us you would be lost. There is a reason why the generation that stepped up to stop Hitler is called "The Greatest Generation". In any conflict, escalation is the key to victory or untold suffering is the result. And if that escalation is unbounded on both sides, then it is not the world that would go blind, only the humans. And if that is the case we were never meant to continue anyway. Nature is a cruel and indifferent mistress - but she gives all life their fair chance. Fail that and she has no mercy. In effect Ghandi was full of shit.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: Many members of our race have never had to face an unbounded oppression in their lives. They have never had to make the choice between passivity and taking up arms to protect their sovereignty or the sovergnty of their nation and way of life. Those that tout a passive resistance can be just as effective as an active resistance should feel blessed that those of us that are willing to take up arms and commit acts of violence against those that would oppress us exist. Without us you would be lost. There is a reason why the generation that stepped up to stop Hitler is called "The Greatest Generation". In any conflict, escalation is the key to victory or untold suffering is the result. And if that escalation is unbounded on both sides, then it is not the world that would go blind, only the humans. And if that is the case we were never meant to continue anyway. Nature is a cruel and indifferent mistress - but she gives all life their fair chance. Fail that and she has no mercy. In effect Ghandi was full of shit.

You are forgetting the flip side to this. Without those that call for peace the world would be lost to war and violence. Without the calls of try peace first and talk it out, we would be savages. Warriors are needed yes. But so are our more Diplomatic brethren. The Jedi need the Guardian and Counselor. Diplomacy first, war when it fails. Neither side is right 100% of the time. Balance in all things. So in effect, Gandhi was not wrong, his method works. Its just not 100% effective, nothing is.

It's easy to fudge principles, which is why society tries to make rules so at the least history can understand the context more acutely of actions, but also so decisions can be made in some shared context. So it's no surprise that a less civilized society will suit brutality and more civilized society will punish it, looking back at the evolution of societies.

Once players are working in and out of rules then there is little to be learnt from people who play outside them, beyond improving governance. As the vid states the context is political theory, so yes it has some relevance there but in reality that would be in an environment of many rules already... perhaps not back in the 16th Century though. So all that relies upon the mechanisms of governance/authority to not be corrupted - which is the real trick - cutting the rot out before it reaches the trunk and roots.

I think strength is less relevant in this to things like awareness, and would say that the novelty of the unexpected seems to be the main point then... being 'different', but different can draw unwanted attention where control does not extend to perception. So timing becomes important, and all these things are underpinned on awareness, as this can mitigate disproportionate capabilities and lies as some of the reasoning behind unconventional warfare, and criminal activity (incl. terrorism).

Surprise as theory, reminds me of a vid I never really understood the value of, good if you cannot get to sleep LOL;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_8KSWQrmOw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cg3STtJ-KBM

@madhatter
Agreed but for those times when war is the only option we must be willing to step up and put our lives on the line for what we believe and make those sacrifices for those that cannot. For me, that is the Jedi way.

We are nice... until it's time not to be nice!

One of my favorite sayings is "It is better to be a warrior in a garden than to be a gardener in a war."

One thing I think both the warrior and the gardener often forget though is their dependence on each other. Without the warrior the gardener would parish, but with out the gardener what is the warrior really fighting for?

Basically, the world needs people who strive for absolute peace, but it also needs those who are willing to fight for it. One tempers the other. We can only hope that they learn to recognize their need for each other and accept each other as part of the whole that they are both working for.

the peaceful gentle people are the ones that the fighting is done for.

if we really were all a bunch of savages it would be just as well to let us kill each
other, but theres something obviously worth protecting about family and stability. about people loving each other and being together. about raising children and being safe to face the mundane, day to day toils of "normal" people doing their best at living "normal" lives (whatever "normal" means lol)

to appreciate peace and stability, i happen think its necessary to see what its opposite actually is. that doesnt mean to glamorize conflict or violence, only to understand it

but the video isnt only about outright violence. the broader philosophical topic is the recognition that we do have to contend from time to time with people who mean us harm, or who will exploit us or step on us to get what they want. and that we're not morally obligated to treat those people with the same level of regard that we bestow on those who care about us and respect our own best interests

Camille Paglia touches on this same theme from a feminist perspective on the topic of rape and sexuality

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udWNkPhffUQ

excerpt

"this is why i called my feminism "drag queen feminism" because the old drag queens were women of the street -i call my feminism "street smart feminism" as well- and they would dress as women and go out and were very subject to attack and to assaults and they had to defend themselves, on the street. and they would defend themselves with their fists and they would rip off their high heel, hit people over the head with their high heel and so on. they could be killed
so this kind of pugilistic, amazonian attitude towards reality is what im trying to project.. what i dont like about contemporary feminism is all of the energy devoted to protecting the bourgeois girl. the white, upper-middle class bourgeois girl, who wants the world to be just like her living room. shes been protected by her parents, shes protected by her university, and she wants to go into the world dressed exactly as she wants, she doesnt even imagine the dangers of the world, she hasnt been taught the dangers of the world. she expects the entire world to be reduced to these bourgeois protections"