Machiavelli: The Qualities of the Prince

Brian Fratto 
10/2

The purpose of Machiavelli’s “Qualities of the Prince” is to provide instructions for how a prince is supposed to conduct himself when faced with certain conflicts that affect himself and his people.  He writes about military issues, generosity, loyalty, and other issues that have an impact on the reputation and power of the prince. Machiavelli, who lived in Florence, Italy, during the rule of the Medici princes, essentially wrote the passage directly to the Medici, to educate and inspire them to save Italy from the imposing power of other bordering countries.

In the first chapter of the reading, Machiavelli discusses the responsibilities of a prince during times of war and peace. “A prince therefore, must not have any other object nor any other thought, nor must he take anything as his profession but war, its institutions, and its discipline, because that is the only profession which benefits one who commands.” According to Machiavelli, a good prince is a strong one who uses his power to instill fear in his people, and the people of other countries. Similarly, Machiavelli discusses whether it is better for a prince to be feared or loved by his people. In accordance with his views of military and generosity, Machiavelli states that princes should aspire to be merciful, however, “he must take care not to misuse this mercy.” According to Machiavelli, it is safer for the prince to be feared by his followers than to loved. However, Machiavelli also states that a prince should avoid being despised. “The prince who projects such an [trustworthy] opinion of himself is greatly esteemed; and it is difficult to conspire against a man with such a reputation.”

Machiavelli essentially states that a prince should take any means necessary in order to further his power and control. However, he also states that a prince should do everything in their power to avoid being hated and despised by others. His consequentialist standpoint contradicts many of his other claims in his writing.

Nietzsche/Murdoch CAL 103 Blog Post

Brian Fratto

Nietzsche/Murdoch Blog

                In Nietzsche’s “Morality as Anti-Nature, he discusses his beliefs and opinions in regards to religion, and its effects on people. Nietzsche argues that, since religion enforces a moral code that punishes people for giving into impulses, it asks us to condemn our passions.  Instead of avoiding and fearing our vices, Nietzsche believes that we should “spiritualize them”, and as a result achieve certain virtues.  “The spiritualization of sensuality is called love: it represents the great triumph over Christianity. “ Similarly, in Iris Murdoch’s “Morality and Religion”, she states that “If there is to be morality, there cannot altogether be an end to evil.  Discord is essential to goodness.”

                I agree with both Nietzsche’s and Murdoch’s claims that by learning from and “spiritualizing” the evil that is in our lives we can learn to be more moral people. However, I do not think that religion has as large of a negative impact on human life as Nietzsche claims. Religion inspires people to be perfect, but by no means expects them to be. I believe that many moral codes from religion offer good insight on how to live a moral and ethical life, even if they are not followed exactly. Thus, personally agree more with Murdoch’s point of view in regards to Morality and Religion over Nietzsche’s.

Gazzaniga: Toward a Universal Ethics

Brian Fratto

9/17/13

            In his “Toward a Universal Ethics”, Michael Gazzaniga ponders the relationship between ethical behavior and brain function.  Gazzaniga, a psychology professor and neuroscientist, discusses the issue of whether our “moral truths” are universally regarded, or rather derived from our internal attitudes. Gazzinaga states that brain imaging suggests that when making a moral decision, “our brains are responding to the great underlying moral dilemmas. Our actions, (or inactions) and moral beliefs are a composition our cultural and social experiences as well as our basic need to survive. Thus, it would seem obvious that people with different backgrounds and experiences would respond differently to common moral dilemmas. However, according to the research of Marc Hauser, people make constantly similar moral choices “irrespective of sex, age, and culture.” Gazzaniga claims that this is due to our common evolutionary biases to preserve ourselves. Gazzaniga states that there are certain rules that our moral truths are based on, and that regardless of whether they are stored within our brain or “independently of us”, there exists a “universal ethics that arises from being human, which is … contextual, emotion-influenced and designed to increase our survival.”

            Personally, I find it hard to agree or disagree with Gazzaniga due to the fact that I do not have the expertise that he has. I find it hard to believe in a “universal ethics” due to the fact that all people are different, and have different brains that perceive things differently. No two people think exactly alike, and morality and ethical behavior follow the same pattern. However, there are certain situations, like the one given in the text, in which it appears that there is only one proper solution that is morally correct.

Appiah: The Case Against Character

Brian Fratto
9/10
    

     In Kwame Appiah's Experiments in Ethics, he discusses the differences between situational ethics and virtue ethics in the chapter: "The Case against Character".  With situational ethics, it is argued that the many of the decisions we make are directly influenced by the situations we find ourselves in, rather than the compassion that one finds within themselves. This bold claim has been backed by significant evidence showing that situation, such as being late for an appointment, does play a large role in whether or not a person will act in a compassionate way. A social experiment showed that after finding a dime in a mall payphone,  six out of seven people stopped to assist a person  in need. In the control group, only one out of twenty-five people stopped and helped the person. Virtue ethics on the other hand, states that “The right thing to do is what a virtuous agent would do in the circumstances.” (Rosalind Hursthouse). Thus, a virtuous person would stop to help a person regardless of any immediate outside influences. However, the study of situational ethics seems to challenge the fact that very many people act solely out of virtue.
            Appiah makes the point that we often make the mistake of misjudging people as compassionate due to the Fundamental Attribution Theory, a cognitive bias that forces us to attribute actions to a person’s morals as opposed to the current circumstances they find themselves in. Due to this, Appiah claims that is incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to actually determine whether or not a person fits the idealistic definition of ‘virtuous’. However, he does state that by understanding that situational ethics exists, a person might be able to correct themselves of these faults by identifying situations where they might "be tempted to avoid doing what [they] ought to do"

Deep Play: Notes on the Balinese Cockfight

Brian Fratto
9/4

        Clifford Geertz, author of Deep Play: "Notes on the Balinese Cockfight", traveled to Bali in 1958 with his wife. When he arrived in the area, he noticed that none of the people who inhabited the area would even acknowledge him or his wife. However, after attending an illegal cockfight in the Balinese village, both Geertz and his wife are forced to run from the local police who are shutting down the cockfight. Once the Balinese people witnessed the two showing the same response to the police as the rest of the village, they acknowledged the similarities between themselves as well as the humanity of the two white people who seemed so foreign. "What we had actually demonstrated was out cowardice, but there is fellowship in that too."

          After Geertz establishes this connection with the Balinese people, he is able to understand  the significance of not only the cocks, but also the cockfights and the respect that the Balinese people have for each other, and the sport. Geertz learns that while the Balinese man's cock is representative of his ego and masculinity, it also is representative of "what he most fears, hates, and ambivalence of what is... The Powers of Darkness". In Balinese cultures, cockfighting is not done solely for sport, but rather is a societal way of bringing people together. This is proven through the unanimous respect for the umpire of the sport. According to Geertz, the umpires judgement and authority is never questioned, a fact that is surprising when considering the egotistical nature of cockfighting. The umpire is " a  judge, a king, a priest,  and a policeman"  showing that the Balinese people have not only the utmost respect to cockfighting, but also to their opponents.

Brian Fratto CAL 103 8/30
The Concept of Discourse Communities


       In section 2.2 of the excerpt, John Swales discusses what he believes to be the key differences between speech communities and discourse communities. He states that discourse communities are a "sociorhetorical" as apposed to "sociolinguistic", insinuating that speech communities develop in order to satisfy certain social needs, while a discourse community is developed for more altruistic reasons. From this distinction, Swales goes on to define the 6 characteristics of a discourse community, all which seem to reinforce this statement. According to Swales, "a discourse community has a broadly agreed set of common public goals." He makes the distinction that these goals are public to assist his assertion that discourse communities act towards the development of the group or a certain field as opposed to personal gain. Swales gives the example of the Hong Kong Study Circle, a group which was created to create interest and advance knowledge of postal systems and services in Hong Kong. Swales describes the conventions used to categorize the items that have been acquired or targeted by the group. A "picture postcard" is marked as "1899 Combination PPC to Europe Franked CIP 4 C canc large CANTON dollar chop, pair HK 2 C Carmine added & Hong Kong index b dcs. Arr cds. (1) (Photo) HK $1500." To the average eye, this set of words and abbreviations might seem indecipherable and pointless. However, to an expert collector, this terminology might make information that was once tedious and difficult to express much more concise and useful. Similarly, many terms and expressions have been coined by discourse communities due to the fact that many concepts and procedures cannot be expressed using simple terms. A relevant example is the idea of  "discourse communities". The term was created by people like John Swales, linguists who analyze certain groups and occurrences that might not even be recognizable to the average person. John Swales uses this term in his writing to express his findings to people who are of the same discourse community, a task that would have been more difficult without this particular phrase.