Between Motive and Result: Rethinking the Methods of Kant and Machiavelli in the Resolution of Moral Conflicts

Abstract

Abstract The study analyzes the importance which we attach to how moral conflicts are generated and resolved. It contrasts Machiavelli’s allusion to the attainment of a good result by using the method which could make the good result attainable, with Kant’s allusion to the motive behind human actions, where the motive dictates how moral conflicts are resolved. It posits that the methods adopted by Machiavelli and Kant in resolving moral conflicts differ. And that just as it may be difficult to accept the method adopted by Machiavelli because it could use a wrong method to resolve moral conflicts and possibly justify the rightness of the wrong method, the allusion of Kant to motive in the attempt to resolve moral conflicts cannot, also, be accepted because no moral agent has the moral capacity to predict or futurize the reason behind the motive of the action of others. It concedes that given these failings, Machiavelli’s method is more pragmatic or socially realistic than Kant’s allusion to the motive. This is because the Kantian motive is not as socially viable with many socio-political options to be made or opened to humans to accept as social agents. Thus, Machiavelli’s allusion to result is as a result of the philosophical import of his political or social orientation. The study adopts the methods of conceptual analysis and philosophical argumentation.