> His great transgression, according to Berlin, was to say aloud what everyone knows but no one will admit: multiple ideals cannot be simultaneously attained. We can’t have everything good all at once.
Everyone will admit this. No one honestly believes all virtues are equally and simultaneously attainable. At any given time, certain things must be prioritized.
But some of us believe that it's not a zero-sum game; that "human nature" is not set in stone, and that it is a worthy project to try and engineer conditions which allow more of humanity's virtues to flourish. Machiavelli would seem to dismiss the possibility that a society can reorient itself towards empathy, charity, and equality without imploding. He also seems to believe that it's correct to trade individual prosperity for state power and glory.
I… don’t think so? Machiavelli was challenging the zero-sum 14-1500s Catholic Christian thinking that the world was set in stone by God and that providence was beyond humanity’s control. This is what he means by encouraging “ambition” among elites - a conscious act to produce the betterment of the state and those within it. Indeed he hoped virtues would flourish in such an environment - but was not optimistic about the odds.
> Machiavelli would seem to dismiss the possibility that a society can reorient itself towards empathy, charity, and equality without imploding.
He’d dismiss a state founded on ideals, yes, but he’s in favor of human progress, even if he’s pessimistic about what that yields. Remember in his era to be ambitious and want to change things was to go against God.
It’s easy to dislike Machiavelli as he’s cynical and amoral but he’s a modern thinker in many ways.
> Machiavelli would seem to dismiss the possibility that a society can reorient itself towards empathy, charity, and equality without imploding.
Pretty much accurate. Machiavelli viewed the 'average person' as capricious and most rulers as corrupt. He viewed the mix of the two as a recipe for societal decay that could only be controlled by rulers of benevolent intent but willing to act without virtue to prevent decay and disorder. In Discourses, Machiavelli reveals his hope that virtue might be pervasive in a republic, but he did not view human nature as necessarily aligned with that goal.
The author is just going for a roundabout version of "[unspecified group] are a bunch of virtue-signaling hypocrites", and giving the reader some latitude to fill in the unspecified group.
But how can it be anything other than a zero-sum game? We are biomechanical units with a limited lifespan. We rent out this lifespan to the highest bidder we can access. And then we die.
And if one of the bio robots happens to be in a different position in the hierarchy (a founder maybe) - their task is to arrange the other biorobots just so and extract maximum output from them before they expire.
Sure, one can work to maximize the extraction and perhaps that's progress in someone's view. But it seems more geared towards ignoring the basic biology of the units involved and pushing them as hard as possible. They are a renewable resource after all, so churning through them faster means more efficiency.
In other words, anyone claiming that life is not a zero-sum game better be ready to demonstrate how immortality is possible. Otherwise it's bovine excrement.
> But how can it be anything other than a zero-sum game? We are biomechanical units with a limited lifespan. We rent out this lifespan to the highest bidder we can access. And then we die.
Do you recall the spontaneous (yet short lived) concern everyone (well, right thinking people at least) had for the well-being of their fellow human (well, fellow countrymen at least) during the COVID phenomenon?
It seems to me that people can be nice to each other, provided you tell them an adequately persuasive story.
No, I don't recall that. I recall a lot of flame wars and virtue signaling about mask wearing. I recall a lot of denial of science because of ideology and fear. And a lot of name calling.
Everyone will admit this. No one honestly believes all virtues are equally and simultaneously attainable. At any given time, certain things must be prioritized.
But some of us believe that it's not a zero-sum game; that "human nature" is not set in stone, and that it is a worthy project to try and engineer conditions which allow more of humanity's virtues to flourish. Machiavelli would seem to dismiss the possibility that a society can reorient itself towards empathy, charity, and equality without imploding. He also seems to believe that it's correct to trade individual prosperity for state power and glory.