Why Machiavelli Would Have Hated Kant

Machiavelli and Kant walk into a bar. One orders a stiff drink, the other lectures the bartender on moral duty.

One believes power makes right; the other says morality is absolute.

One would have conquered the world; the other would have written a pamphlet about why that’s wrong.

It’s safe to say, Niccolò Machiavelli would have absolutely despised Immanuel Kant.

The man behind The Prince—a book about power, deception, and doing whatever it takes to win—would have looked at Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason like a wolf staring at a salad.

Here’s why, in seven points, Machiavelli would have rather sat through a Spanish Inquisition than listen to Kant talk about ethics.

1. Machiavelli’s Realpolitik vs. Kant’s Moral Absolutism

Machiavelli was the guy telling princes, “Listen, people suck. You gotta be ruthless, lie if necessary, and do what it takes to stay in power.”

Kant, on the other hand, would have been that one guy at the royal court saying, “No, no, no, Your Highness. Lying is always wrong, even if it saves lives.” You can see the problem.

Machiavelli saw the world as a brutal, bloody chessboard. Kant? He was playing checkers with angels.

2. Kant’s Categorical Imperative Would Have Given Machiavelli an Aneurysm

Kant had this idea called the categorical imperative. Basically, it means you should act only in ways that could become universal laws.

No exceptions. Ever. Machiavelli would have laughed so hard his Florentine wine would have shot out of his nose.

If a prince followed Kant’s logic, he’d be overthrown in a week.

Imagine trying to rule without ever deceiving, without ever making tough moral compromises. That’s how you end up dead.

3. Machiavelli Respected Results, Kant Worshipped Intentions

For Machiavelli, all that mattered was what worked. “Forget being good,” he said, “be effective.” Kant, meanwhile, was busy telling people that even if your moral action fails spectacularly, as long as you meant well, you’re still a good person.

Machiavelli would have called Kant’s ethics a loser’s handbook. He was all about the ends justifying the means. Kant? He was about the means justifying… well, nothing, because he didn’t care if you failed.

4. Kant’s Useless Idealism Would Have Annoyed the Hell Out of Machiavelli

Machiavelli wrote The Prince to help rulers survive. Kant wrote Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals—a book about morality that has zero practical advice. If you were drowning, Machiavelli would tell you to grab onto whoever you need to survive. Kant would be on the shore yelling, “Do not lie to the lifeguard!”

Machiavelli was a survivor. Kant was a preacher with no congregation.

5. Machiavelli Knew Fear Works Better Than Love—Kant Thought People Were Better Than They Are

Machiavelli famously wrote, “It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both.”

He understood people. Kant, on the other hand, had this naive belief that humans, deep down, would choose moral duty over self-interest.

Machiavelli knew better. He had seen enough backstabbing, betrayal, and poisonings to know that if you’re not feared, you’re nothing.

6. Kant Believed in Universal Morality—Machiavelli Laughed at the Idea

Kant thought that morality was universal and the same for everyone, whether you were a peasant or a king. Machiavelli would have spat out his wine. The guy spent his whole life studying rulers and knew one thing: morality bends for the powerful.

Kant wanted a world of fair play. Machiavelli had seen too much blood in the streets to believe in fairy tales.

7. Machiavelli Would Have Hated Kant’s Useless Theories About Politics

Machiavelli was a man of politics, of war, of power. Kant was a man of theories, of philosophy, of abstract thought. If the two ever met, Machiavelli would have left the conversation shaking his head, wondering how a man so intelligent could be so hopelessly naive.

Machiavelli wrote for rulers. Kant wrote for university students. That says it all.

Table Summary: Why Machiavelli Would Have Hated Kant

Reason	Machiavelli’s View	Kant’s View
Morality	A tool to be used	An absolute law
Lying & Deception	Necessary for power	Always wrong
Results vs. Intentions	Results matter most	Intentions matter most
Idealism vs. Realism	Cold, hard realism	Utopian idealism
Fear vs. Love	Fear keeps power	People should be good
Universal Morality?	No, power changes morality	Yes, morality is the same for all
Practicality	Wrote for rulers	Wrote for theorists

Conclusion: Machiavelli Would Have Crushed Kant in a Street Fight

If these two had ever met, it wouldn’t have been a debate. It would have been a bloodbath—metaphorically speaking (or maybe not). Kant would have walked in talking about duty and reason, and Machiavelli would have immediately found a way to use him for political gain. Kant would have preached about morality; Machiavelli would have used his words as a distraction to pull off a coup.

Because at the end of the day, the world doesn’t run on morality. It runs on power, survival, and strategy. Machiavelli knew this. Kant refused to see it. And that’s why, if Machiavelli ever had to suffer through a Kant lecture, he probably would have walked out halfway through—muttering about how only a fool would believe in absolute morality when history is written by the winners.