Machiavellianism: A necessary evil

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
baker
Posts: 608
Joined: November 28th, 2020, 6:55 am

Re: Machiavellianism: A necessary evil

Post by baker »

LuckyR wrote: February 15th, 2021, 8:58 amMost (like myself) however, don't bring up our weaknesses at job interviews. I didn't discuss negative aspects of my character in my college application essay.
Did they ask you about your weaknesses or negative aspects of your character?
If they did, and you didn't reply, or you gave a misleading reply, how did that help your ends?

Sooner or later, weaknesses and flaws become apparent, and they will be held against you. So what's the point in lying about them?
Unless you're joining a very specific social group where what mainstream society or "official morality" would call weaknesses or flaws are actually considered strengths.
I am ends focused.
But what exactly are your ends?

Living the "high life"?
Others care more about process than outcome.
This is not an accurate description.

We probably have very different ends, so we need different means.

That's fine. Not common, but fine.
Good on you.
But you don't really believe that, do you? :p
baker
Posts: 608
Joined: November 28th, 2020, 6:55 am

Re: Machiavellianism: A necessary evil

Post by baker »

LuckyR wrote: February 15th, 2021, 9:19 amSemi-separate issue: we all acknowledge that advertising exists, right? Is this OK? I am trying to describe what could be thought of as "personal advertising".
Of course. But what counts as good personal advertising in one industry isn't necessarily considered such in some other industry, and similar for different jobs/roles.

For example, in order to be a good salesperson in the industry of luxuries requires a different set of personal characteristics than what it takes to be a good farmer. But things will also further depend on the particular employer, as within the same industry, one can find different types of employers, character-wise.

We all agree truth is a goal, some aren't acknowledging that it's not the only goal.
No, that's skewed.

"Truth is the goal" -- who says that?? Romantics, idealists, fanatics, simpletons, cynics.

Not having truth as the goal doesn't mean that one has lies or half-truths as the goal. I think the matter is very complex, on a case-by-case basis.

I'm not even sure truth can be a goal, other than in some pursuit where such is clearly specified.
When looking for a job, the goal can be to get a job one is reasonably able to do and with a tolerable measure of unethical shenanigans in the work organization and work process. What this "tolerable measure" is will depend on the individual person.
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7938
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Machiavellianism: A necessary evil

Post by LuckyR »

baker wrote: February 16th, 2021, 11:03 am
LuckyR wrote: February 15th, 2021, 8:58 amMost (like myself) however, don't bring up our weaknesses at job interviews. I didn't discuss negative aspects of my character in my college application essay.
Did they ask you about your weaknesses or negative aspects of your character?
If they did, and you didn't reply, or you gave a misleading reply, how did that help your ends?

Sooner or later, weaknesses and flaws become apparent, and they will be held against you. So what's the point in lying about them?
Unless you're joining a very specific social group where what mainstream society or "official morality" would call weaknesses or flaws are actually considered strengths.
I am ends focused.
But what exactly are your ends?

Living the "high life"?
Others care more about process than outcome.
This is not an accurate description.

We probably have very different ends, so we need different means.

That's fine. Not common, but fine.
Good on you.
But you don't really believe that, do you? :p
You are either exaggerating (a form of inaccurate information) or your job interviews are extremely atypical if you don't accentuate your positives and diminish your negatives (like essentially every single interviewee ever).

We're both talking around yet not mentioning the reality that we are all competing in an environment where folks massage the truth in their personal favor. If you don't follow this practice (that neither you nor I created) you are choosing to be at a disadvantage (and if it impacts your income, your family as well). That's better for me, but worse for you.

My "ends"? Nothing fancy: getting the job. BTW since the interviewer knows folks exaggerate (or worse) they take this into account and are not fooled by this reality, so if the interviewer isn't harmed by this skewed environment, who is harmed by it? Interviewees who don't play the game.

Speaking of ends, what's your "end" at a job interview, since you predicted it is different than mine?
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7938
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Machiavellianism: A necessary evil

Post by LuckyR »

baker wrote: February 16th, 2021, 11:32 am
LuckyR wrote: February 15th, 2021, 9:19 amSemi-separate issue: we all acknowledge that advertising exists, right? Is this OK? I am trying to describe what could be thought of as "personal advertising".
Of course. But what counts as good personal advertising in one industry isn't necessarily considered such in some other industry, and similar for different jobs/roles.

For example, in order to be a good salesperson in the industry of luxuries requires a different set of personal characteristics than what it takes to be a good farmer. But things will also further depend on the particular employer, as within the same industry, one can find different types of employers, character-wise.

We all agree truth is a goal, some aren't acknowledging that it's not the only goal.
No, that's skewed.

"Truth is the goal" -- who says that?? Romantics, idealists, fanatics, simpletons, cynics.

Not having truth as the goal doesn't mean that one has lies or half-truths as the goal. I think the matter is very complex, on a case-by-case basis.

I'm not even sure truth can be a goal, other than in some pursuit where such is clearly specified.
When looking for a job, the goal can be to get a job one is reasonably able to do and with a tolerable measure of unethical shenanigans in the work organization and work process. What this "tolerable measure" is will depend on the individual person.
You misquoted. I said "we all agree truth is A goal", not THE goal.

Another goal is to successfully negotiate this complex environment that none of us created, where our competitors engage in the common practice of various levels of half truths and out and out lies.

I was not dishonest when I gave you props for your idealistic stand, though I am not being unethical when violating my personal standards to compete fairly in a skewed system not of my making. You sound like you agree in your last paragraph. Again, good on you.
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
chewybrian
Posts: 1594
Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
Location: Florida man

Re: Machiavellianism: A necessary evil

Post by chewybrian »

LuckyR wrote: February 15th, 2021, 9:19 am What about discussing adult topics with children? Is it morally justified to alter that conversation?
I tried to have a topic on this but it did not get much traction. I feel I was held back by being told happy lies in place of 'unpleasant' truths. We might think kids can't handle truth, but I think we underestimate them. I know I was having an existential crisis quite early in life. Since nobody else seemed to be owning up to having those kind of problems of questioning the meaning of their existence, I was afraid to speak up. They all appeared (outwardly) to have a handle on things and to have goals that (from my perspective) seemed to be adequate to give them purpose. Most of the people around me seemed to have religion to fall back on, though they it gave a lot of lip service and didn't seem to put much effort into putting their beliefs into practice in the real world. Jesus hung out with hookers and thieves, but we never did!

But, I found out much later in life that things like death have no sting if you simply accept and even embrace them. All the crap methods of denial and avoidance were just making things worse. It's not that hard to accept the new normal (actually the old normal that you were trying to deny) and reset your expectations to match reality (such as you can understand it). It's OK to admit that you don't have a full understanding or a deep, worthwhile purpose. You can still choose your own purpose, and do what you can within your limited abilities and understanding. Being Catholic made things much worse, as our religion tended to view things in absolute terms, seating up ideals of behavior that nobody could match. It made people who were honest with themselves feel they were going straight to hell, while those who preferred to project their faults out into the world were heavily armed.
"If determinism holds, then past events have conspired to cause me to hold this view--it is out of my control. Either I am right about free will, or it is not my fault that I am wrong."
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7938
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Machiavellianism: A necessary evil

Post by LuckyR »

chewybrian wrote: February 16th, 2021, 3:23 pm
LuckyR wrote: February 15th, 2021, 9:19 am What about discussing adult topics with children? Is it morally justified to alter that conversation?
I tried to have a topic on this but it did not get much traction. I feel I was held back by being told happy lies in place of 'unpleasant' truths. We might think kids can't handle truth, but I think we underestimate them. I know I was having an existential crisis quite early in life. Since nobody else seemed to be owning up to having those kind of problems of questioning the meaning of their existence, I was afraid to speak up. They all appeared (outwardly) to have a handle on things and to have goals that (from my perspective) seemed to be adequate to give them purpose. Most of the people around me seemed to have religion to fall back on, though they it gave a lot of lip service and didn't seem to put much effort into putting their beliefs into practice in the real world. Jesus hung out with hookers and thieves, but we never did!

But, I found out much later in life that things like death have no sting if you simply accept and even embrace them. All the crap methods of denial and avoidance were just making things worse. It's not that hard to accept the new normal (actually the old normal that you were trying to deny) and reset your expectations to match reality (such as you can understand it). It's OK to admit that you don't have a full understanding or a deep, worthwhile purpose. You can still choose your own purpose, and do what you can within your limited abilities and understanding. Being Catholic made things much worse, as our religion tended to view things in absolute terms, seating up ideals of behavior that nobody could match. It made people who were honest with themselves feel they were going straight to hell, while those who preferred to project their faults out into the world were heavily armed.
Two comments: I am sorry you were negatively impacted by the situation you describe. Secondly, I agree with you that kids can handle more than what many suppose, though it is accurate that kids can't process issues identically to adults, so changing the content of conversations at some level is still relevant.
"As usual... it depends."
HJCarden
Posts: 137
Joined: November 18th, 2020, 12:22 am

Re: Machiavellianism: A necessary evil

Post by HJCarden »

One of the things that I consider interesting about our communication and what we regard as "acceptable lies" comes from our ideas about what is personal enough to us that we are allowed to keep it secret, and therefore it is acceptable to lie about it.

In one response I saw someone imply that if I asked for your credit card #, you wouldn't tell me or you would lie, which is totally acceptable. Identity theft and credit fraud can cause an awful lot of financial and emotional distress, and so of course it would be acceptable to lie about this to save yourself of that.

Potentially one way we can look at lying in a political, Machiavellian sense is to say that lying here is justified because the prince holds the success of his kingdom so close to his heart, and at the center of his intentions is the desire for it and his people to flourish, so he is justified in lying. It could be said that because this is a matter so important to the prince, as his position requires it to be, that he is entirely justified in his actions.

Of course there are other justifications for lying, but I think this one does a good job of explaining why we find it very acceptable to lie in our everyday lives, especially when there is a large incongruence in the amount of harm we do and the good we receive from lying.
baker
Posts: 608
Joined: November 28th, 2020, 6:55 am

Re: Machiavellianism: A necessary evil

Post by baker »

LuckyR wrote: February 16th, 2021, 2:52 pmAnother goal is to successfully negotiate this complex environment that none of us created
We may not have invented the game, but when we choose to play it, we promote it. So we're not innocent in this.
Similarly as, for example, driving a car because everyone else does so and it's a necessity doesn't mean one isn't polluting the environment.
I was not dishonest when I gave you props for your idealistic stand, though I am not being unethical when violating my personal standards to compete fairly in a skewed system not of my making. You sound like you agree in your last paragraph. Again, good on you.
Actually, I think we're not on the same page.

There are things one might perceive as necessary to one's survival, but that doesn't automatically make them moral nor does it make one innocent.

It seems that believing you're competing "in a skewed system not of your making" is what gives you peace of mind. To me, it doesn't. Like I said, the skewed system might not be my own invention, but once I choose to use it, to play along, to profit from it, I'm complicit in its making, I'm not innocent anymore, and I can't say anymore that the system isn't of my own making.
User avatar
Papus79
Posts: 1798
Joined: February 19th, 2017, 6:59 pm

Re: Machiavellianism: A necessary evil

Post by Papus79 »

Condensing what I said earlier a bit - if we can't figure out how to get rivalrous dynamics under tighter reigns we're an abortive species. We can't have both high technology and high, relatively ungoverned, rivalry. Full Game of Thrones is fine if we're fighting with clubs and spears or swords and bows. If it's nukes, or even synthetic biology, we're chain-smokers habitually lighting up at the gas pump.
Humbly watching Youtube in Universe 25. - Me
baker
Posts: 608
Joined: November 28th, 2020, 6:55 am

Re: Machiavellianism: A necessary evil

Post by baker »

Papus79 wrote: February 19th, 2021, 3:24 pmCondensing what I said earlier a bit - if we can't figure out how to get rivalrous dynamics under tighter reigns

we're an abortive species.
Now if that doesn't come with a sigh of relief ...
Maybe Martians could do better than we've done!
User avatar
Papus79
Posts: 1798
Joined: February 19th, 2017, 6:59 pm

Re: Machiavellianism: A necessary evil

Post by Papus79 »

baker wrote: February 19th, 2021, 3:45 pm Maybe Martians could do better than we've done!
That's a bit of P4P philosophy. We'd make great pets.
Humbly watching Youtube in Universe 25. - Me
BobS
Posts: 75
Joined: February 12th, 2021, 2:14 pm

Re: Machiavellianism: A necessary evil

Post by BobS »

LuckyR wrote: February 15th, 2021, 8:58 am Most (like myself) however, don't bring up our weaknesses at job interviews.
Hard to claim that your should always be honest during a job interview in light of the following. (Stop me if you're heard this one!)

This was the tail end of a recent job interview:

Interviewer: Now tell me, what's your biggest weakness?

Job applicant: Oh, that's easy. I'm too honest.

Interviewer: I don't think that's really a weakness.

Applicant: I don't give a **** what you think.

QED
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7938
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Machiavellianism: A necessary evil

Post by LuckyR »

baker wrote: February 19th, 2021, 3:02 pm
LuckyR wrote: February 16th, 2021, 2:52 pmAnother goal is to successfully negotiate this complex environment that none of us created
We may not have invented the game, but when we choose to play it, we promote it. So we're not innocent in this.
Similarly as, for example, driving a car because everyone else does so and it's a necessity doesn't mean one isn't polluting the environment.
I was not dishonest when I gave you props for your idealistic stand, though I am not being unethical when violating my personal standards to compete fairly in a skewed system not of my making. You sound like you agree in your last paragraph. Again, good on you.
Actually, I think we're not on the same page.

There are things one might perceive as necessary to one's survival, but that doesn't automatically make them moral nor does it make one innocent.

It seems that believing you're competing "in a skewed system not of your making" is what gives you peace of mind. To me, it doesn't. Like I said, the skewed system might not be my own invention, but once I choose to use it, to play along, to profit from it, I'm complicit in its making, I'm not innocent anymore, and I can't say anymore that the system isn't of my own making.
You are, of course free to view the system any way you want, however you seem to be ignoring the fact that for all practical purposes, participation in the hiring system is not optional, thus you are misspeaking at minimum when you describe it as a choice.

It is this lack of choice, rather than the fact I didn't originate the system personally that absolves me of responsibility for the state of the rules of the game.
"As usual... it depends."
baker
Posts: 608
Joined: November 28th, 2020, 6:55 am

Re: Machiavellianism: A necessary evil

Post by baker »

LuckyR wrote: February 20th, 2021, 4:23 amYou are, of course free to view the system any way you want, however you seem to be ignoring the fact that for all practical purposes, participation in the hiring system is not optional, thus you are misspeaking at minimum when you describe it as a choice.

It is this lack of choice, rather than the fact I didn't originate the system personally that absolves me of responsibility for the state of the rules of the game.
On the one hand, I would agree, and make the same argument.

On the other hand, back when I was going to school, life was presented to us just in terms of such choice, even as we didn't feel we had any choice in the matter. I still remember a teacher saying to me, "You either do what I say, or you'll fail the class. It's your choice." I've noticed this pattern consistently further on in life. At least to those who are in some position of power over us (and to whom we are expendable), us playing along or not is clearly a matter of our choice.
I don't know whose perspective is the relevant one here.

It seems that the job searching scenario potentially falls under "moral reasoning and moral responsibility under durress".

however you seem to be ignoring the fact that for all practical purposes, participation in the hiring system is not optional
It is optional, given that you could also become self-employed, or continue looking for a better employer.
Fewer options doesn't equal no options.

So the actual issue is how much of one's moral sense is one willing to sacrifice in the pursuit of earning a living.
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7938
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Machiavellianism: A necessary evil

Post by LuckyR »

baker wrote: February 21st, 2021, 10:47 am
LuckyR wrote: February 20th, 2021, 4:23 amYou are, of course free to view the system any way you want, however you seem to be ignoring the fact that for all practical purposes, participation in the hiring system is not optional, thus you are misspeaking at minimum when you describe it as a choice.

It is this lack of choice, rather than the fact I didn't originate the system personally that absolves me of responsibility for the state of the rules of the game.
On the one hand, I would agree, and make the same argument.

On the other hand, back when I was going to school, life was presented to us just in terms of such choice, even as we didn't feel we had any choice in the matter. I still remember a teacher saying to me, "You either do what I say, or you'll fail the class. It's your choice." I've noticed this pattern consistently further on in life. At least to those who are in some position of power over us (and to whom we are expendable), us playing along or not is clearly a matter of our choice.
I don't know whose perspective is the relevant one here.

It seems that the job searching scenario potentially falls under "moral reasoning and moral responsibility under durress".

however you seem to be ignoring the fact that for all practical purposes, participation in the hiring system is not optional
It is optional, given that you could also become self-employed, or continue looking for a better employer.
Fewer options doesn't equal no options.

So the actual issue is how much of one's moral sense is one willing to sacrifice in the pursuit of earning a living.
Congrats, you're almost there, one step to go. It is the "duress" you correctly identify that makes what at first glance seems to be a violation of "one's moral sense", and puts that responsibility on the system and relieves you of it.

As we all know, everyone can't be self employed, so that remedy is the exception not a rule to live by.
"As usual... it depends."
Post Reply

Return to “Ethics and Morality”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021