Machiavelli's treatment of ethics and morality is amoral. This is so because he simply talks about what it takes to be an effective leader. In no way is Machiavelli promoting immorality. He speaks of immorality acts in order for a ruler to serve the greater good of his people. He looks at politics without moral immoral thoughts. To argue that Machiavelli is amoral, one must understand how he treats religion and the primary source of moral standards that he has established in his amoral context. He stands by what must be done in order for a leader to be effective and lead his people.
             The Prince is a great guide for efficient and successful government. The goal Machiavelli's overall point is to stay in power; any means necessary to accomplish these goals are acceptable. He clearly sees the importance of force when he states, " Moses, Cyrus, Thesus, nor Romulus would have been able to make their peoples obey their new structures of authority for long had they been unarmed."(Wootton 20) And again, when he says "the main foundation which all states must have, whether new, or old, or mixed, is good laws and good armies."(Wootton 38) He stresses the importance of the army to the extent of excluding any possible good laws where there are not good armies in which he concentrates his attention on describing its merits. He rejects the use of armies made up of mercenaries and considers them useless for maintaining security and stability. Mercenaries are motivated by "their small stipend which is not enough to make them willing to die for you" he also adds "There is no difficulty in demonstrating the truth if this; for the present ruins of Italy can be attributed to nothing else." (Wootton 38) One could conceived this as immoral of Machiavelli to speak of mercenaries, but the fact of the matter is to maintain a resolute government you need dedicated soldiers who will at the drop of a dime will...