馬基維利的溫和馬基維利主義

Machiavelli’s Moderate Machiavellism

一直以來，馬基維利一直被理解為極端馬基維利主義者，當人們提到不擇手段追求私利與權力的暴君時，馬基維利常被妖魔化為這種暴君的支持者，也被認為是一位完全屏棄道德、並將這個價值排除在政治場域的思想家。然而，在透過對馬基維利著作的細讀，本研究試圖將馬基維利定位為溫和馬基維利主義的支持者。雖然馬基維利擁護現實政治的馬基維利因素，他其實也明辨馬基維利主義的闕漏。特別是，他完全認知到馬基維利主義—亦即不擇手段運用暴力達成目標—並不必然能帶來所欲的結果與成功。具體而言，本論文提出三個理由說明為何馬基維利必須要被詮釋為溫和馬基維利主義的支持者。第一，馬基維利主張要用有效率的暴力來當作統治的手段。君王不應恆常地使用暴力，而是要立即且暫時性地用暴力，並且要適時運用赦免以取得人民的信任。無效率、無節制，而且不顧後果地用暴力將必然導致統治失敗。第二，馬基維利意圖在追求共善的目標下節制暴力的使用，他警告專橫且毫無節制地使用暴力會產生負面後果。最後，馬基維利認為使用暴力時要考量適當的時機。在建造國家初期，由於集中權力有其必要性，所以可容許君王使用暴力和欺騙的不道德手段。但在建國之後，則需要利用法律體系或正義來進行統治。簡言之，馬基維利的馬基維利主義立基於對盲目道德主義和無條件使用暴力的批評，他並非一般意義下的馬基維利主義者。

Machiavelli has been conventionally understood as the proponent of extreme Machiavellism. He has been easily demonized as the advocate of tyranny pursuing private interests and power regardless of means and methods and of being unconditionally committed to evil, as well as a thinker who has completely disregarded morality and excluded this virtue from the realm of politics. By drawing upon a careful reading of his original writings, however, this article seeks to portray Machiavelli as a proponent of moderate Machiavellism rather than of the extreme variety. Although Machiavelli embraced the oft-mentioned Machiavellian elements of realpolitik, he also identified loopholes within Machiavellism. In particular, he was fully aware that Machiavellism--that is, the exercise of violence to achieve the purpose regardless of the means and method--may not bring the desired outcome and success. To be specific, this article proposes three reasons why Machiavelli himself must be interpreted as the advocate of moderate Machiavellism. First, Machiavelli called for the efficient use of violence as a means of rule. Violence should not be used consistently. The ruler must exercise violence at once and temporarily and must then obtain the public’s trust through proper dispensation. The inefficient or uncontrolled exercise of violence without the appropriateness in light of its consequences will inevitably lead to failure. Second, Machiavelli intended to constrain the use of violence and its evilness within the purpose and cause of the common good. He warned of negative consequences for the arbitrary and unrestricted use of violence. Finally, Machiavelli offered to use the violence in a timely manner. During the phase of founding a state when the concentration of power is highly required, immoral methods such as violence and deception can be tolerated. To govern the state afterwards, however, it is more important to have a form of governance that depends on a legal system or justice. In short, the main point of Machiavelli’s Machiavellism lies in his critique of the authorization of blind moralism and unconditional violence. Machiavelli himself was not a Machiavellian in the conventional sense.