I found the comparison here between Machiavelli and Nietzsche interesting, and in some respects there is a blurring here between the ideas of the two men. What I think is interesting is that Nietzsche was also responding to Dostoevsky. I think Dostoevsky makes a stronger psychological claim to the benefits of Christianity than existed in Machiavelli's time.

It also reminds me of a recent discussion I had here on HN related to cynicism, something I think Machiavelli could be accused of supporting. His moral prescription is for the absolute rulers of states, not for the subjects of the state. He is claiming to be objectively analytical in his description of effective state stewardship. In that sense, it is obvious to him that the ruler of a state ought to be held to a different moral standard than the subjects. This is red meat for the cynic who wants to see any pronouncement from any authority as being duplicitous or hypocritical. Of course the ruling class are telling me to "love and forgive my enemy" since that will make me easy to govern, yet those same rulers will surely annihilate their enemies just as Machiavelli taught them to do.

It makes the general push of humanism towards universal moral values a bit more clear to me than it was previously. And why we should be extremely wary of any kind of moral relativism, even when it is couched in progressive liberalism. If we allow moral relativism then the most pernicious place it can take place is in the ruling class. That is guaranteed to breed cynicism in the populace.

I think, for that reason, we must demand that our rulers are held to the same moral standards as the populace. That might mean we will not have states as glorious as the Roman Empire, but perhaps that is a price worth paying. I admit that I don't have an answer to Machiavelli's question as to how a state where the rulers are held to the same moral standards as the populace can hope to compete against states where the rulers are free to set their own more brutal morality.