Synopsis

(The focus paper is available to DOWNLOAD HERE)

For centuries, Niccolo Machiavelli and his philosophy has been shorthand for manipulation, cynicism, ruthless power and an ends justifies the means approach. Yet beneath the caricature lies an interesting and perhaps uncomfortable question: in a world where power is real, stakes are high, and ideal conditions don’t always exist, can his philosophy be used for ethical purposes?

This paper re-examines Machiavellian reasoning in the context of a decision-making framework. A framework that helps to improve situational awareness and navigating imperfect systems. In Machiavelli’s time, rulers lacked true accountability and legal oversight. Today, however, leaders work within institutional constraints designed to limit abuse. What once preserved political stability may now destroy public trust and manipulation normalises cynicism and incentivises distrust across all levels of society.

But the dilemma of adapting to unpredictable situations in an unpredictable world remains. On occasion, Machiavellian tactics may be called on to restore order. The paper asks are there direct circumstances in which strategic concealment or manipulation of information can be ethically defensible without undermining the moral framework they operate in.

To explore this tension, the paper doesn’t offer an open-ended defence of Machiavellian tactics. Instead, it approaches the question cautiously and explores different schools of thought that interrogates the principles of Machiavellianism, while leaving room for how ideas can co-exist.

The paper also highlights concrete case studies and hypothetical examples across historic and corporate contexts to test Machiavellian ideas in action. These examples are weighed against factors like accountability, the necessity to act, proportionality and consequences. Through looking at these examples, the paper aims to show the distinction between calculated strategy and habitual Machiavellianism. It asks whether ethical vigilance can coexist with tactical choices, and whether power, once displayed, reshapes morality.

“Everyone sees what you appear to be, few experience who you really are.” Machiavelli made this observation centuries ago, referencing the dilemma is often less about what one does than how one is seen.

This insight underscores the ongoing tension between perception and reality in decision-making. While few will fully grasp the intentions behind a strategic choice, the responsibility of the actor doesn’t disappear. Strategy may shape perception, but integrity is revealed in the willingness to answer for one’s choices. Let us explore all of this in depth at the Philosophy Forum on Tuesday 16^th June at 7 PM.

What to Expect

The Lit&Phil Philosophy Forum is a space where serious ideas meet joyful exploration. Whether you are a seasoned philosopher or a curious newcomer, our discussions are designed to foster a spirit of open-minded inquiry. We prioritise respectful dialogue, intellectual curiosity, and the shared pursuit of understanding over adversarial debate. This is philosophy as it should be – dynamic, inclusive, and profoundly engaging.

Practical Details

(The focus paper is available to DOWNLOAD HERE)

Note on Attendance: Due to the popularity of these events, places are often fully booked. If you reserve a ticket but later find you cannot attend, we kindly ask that you cancel promptly to allow others the opportunity to join.

Synopsis

(The focus paper is available to DOWNLOAD HERE)

Large Language Models can generate content resembling poetry but is it actually poetry and does this mean we have created a poet? Poetry and poets have existed throughout history and the definitions of both have been debated continuously. This paper attempts to define the acceptance criteria for an artificial poet and how this task could be interpreted by Romantic and Modernist poets. Would either consider the building of an artificial poet possible?

Questions for discussion

• Is lived experience necessary for poetry, or only for poets?
• Can meaning exist without intention?
• If AI learns poetry from human poetry, is it creating anything new or just recombining? Does this matter? Is this just what humans do anyway?
• Is the fact that AI poetry is preferred to human poetry evidence that LLMs do in fact understand human feeling in the same way that we do? Is it just that the exact mechanism of that understanding is hidden within the model parameters and not understood by us yet?
• If machines could feel, could a sufficiently advanced AI ever satisfy the Romantic criteria for a “poet for machines”?
• Do you agree with the limitations of AI with respect to modernist poetry? Does AI actually fulfil Eliot’s theory of poetry better than humans do?
• Do you agree that AI cannot accurately identify emotions?
• If you read a poem, feel deeply moved, and later discover it was written by a machine—has the value of the poem changed, or only your interpretation of it?

What to Expect

The Lit&Phil Philosophy Forum is a space where serious ideas meet joyful exploration. Whether you are a seasoned philosopher or a curious newcomer, our discussions are designed to foster a spirit of open-minded inquiry. We prioritise respectful dialogue, intellectual curiosity, and the shared pursuit of understanding over adversarial debate. This is philosophy as it should be – dynamic, inclusive, and profoundly engaging.

Practical Details

(The focus paper is available to DOWNLOAD HERE)

Note on Attendance: Due to the popularity of these events, places are often fully booked. If you reserve a ticket but later find you cannot attend, we kindly ask that you cancel promptly to allow others the opportunity to join.