Machiavelli: The Power of Fear Essay

Machiavelli led us to a question that was continuously in disagreement. That question was “Is it better to be loved than feared, or vice versa” (p.392)? Machiavelli thought that one is to be loved & feared. Nevertheless, at the same time it’s tremendously hard to achieve being both loved & feared. Machiavelli believed that if one had to do without one of them that it would be a safer to be feared than to be loved. For example if a ruler was more loved than feared then if you served their men’s interest & were also devoted to them they would promise you their blood, possessions, lives, & children until you needed help because once you needed help you were on our own. If you’re more feared than loved then when you’re in trouble your

As you stare down the barrel of a gun, you may find yourself encompassed by fear and unable to move. Niccolo Machiavelli believed that fear and manipulation were key to dominate men. In Machiavelli’s paper, “The Morals of the Prince”, he educates the reader on what it means to be an effective position of authority- a leader. In light of Machiavelli’s beliefs, this paper will argue that love is more useful than being feared in positions of power, using examples from the educational system, parents, and the law enforcement.

Machiavelli went on to discuss the strategies of ruling by fear. "For it is perfectly possible to be feared without incurring hatred," shows that Machiavelli really thought over his writings. For it is highly possible that one who hates may to try to destroy that which he hates even if it means self destruction in the process.

In this paper, I will argue that a leader needs to be beast-like and must break their word when it suits their purpose. It's my position that a leader needs to assume characteristics of a lion to be effective, then I will argue that a leader needs to be cunning like a fox when breaking their word so it serves their purpose. Below I will argue why a ruler assumes characteristics of a lion to rule effectively.

The pieces of Machiavelli's advice I agree with is that it is much safer to be feared than to be loved. I believe in Machiavelli's stance because as a prince or ruler of a state, it is not possible to appease the needs of every citizen. Even though satisfying the the different needs of every person or group in your nation will make bring love, it is simply not possible. As a ruler, you must make decisions on what is best for the majority of people whether your citizens like your decision or not. By invoking fear, you citizens will be afraid to oppose your decisions as they will fear the consequences if they decide to go against your authority.

Machiavelli says that if someone is loved then they are simply at the mercy of the people you lead and if they are feared then they have no choice but to stay loyal. If a CEO was loved in the situation of having insufficient funds for basic needs then he wouldn't be able to pay his workers. When this happens, the workers will most likely stop loving and respecting their CEO which would cause chaos and eventually a collapse in the company. If this CEO was feared, the workers do not have a choice, they will stay in their place. They do not want to lose their jobs and that could happen if they fall out of line during this rough time. The fear doesn’t give people a choice; they either stay loyal or are removed from the group. I accepted all of Machiavelli’s ideals until the last point he brought up. He envisions that a prince should be seem to have five good qualities: compassion, honor, integrity, humanity and religion. He does not think that they need to have these qualities, just appear to have them. I dissagree with his claim and believe that anyone that is in power should strive to actually possess these admirable qualities, not just fake them. Before actually reading this essay, I did not see why anyone would still use this book to explore options

For example there might have never been peace with the other countries that they wanted peace with and the people would not have been obedient to Borgia and the country. Borgia wanted to have a country where there was at least some peace and some obedience to him and the country and so he knew that it was better for him to take steps to make sure that his people feared him more than loved him, because he knew that if it was the opposite that the results that he wanted may not have come out as he wanted them to. “So long as he keeps his subjects united and loyal, a prince ought not to mind gaining the reputation for cruelty…” is a quote from the prince and Machiavelli goes on to explain why that is true he says, because rulers often show too much compassion, and in the end that causes turmoil, disorder and more problems, says Machiavelli. So what he is saying is that when ruler, leaders and etc. show that they want to be loved and not show that the want to be listened to and be feared that the people of the country or

Through the use of fear, Stalin was able to take over all of Russia. Stalin even starved his nation and worked them to death, but even though they were dying, the citizens of Russia were still loyal to Stalin. Machiavelli wrote in his book,"…no prince should mind being called cruel for what he does to keep his subjects united and loyal…". As long as the leader is in control of his country, the leader should be slipshod what his subjects say, actions are stronger than words. When a leader is loved rather than feared the citizens or subjects are more open to saying an offensive and faulty thing about their leader. Bad talking a leader mostly happens with a gentle, loving leader, while a leader who is feared shameful talking will not happen as much, Machiavelli states," People are less concerned with offending a man who makes himself loved than one who makes himself feared…". Machiavelli takes the "fear is better side" to help a prince achieve honor in ruling a hard, strenuous nation. Although leaders rule through love, ruling through fear is much more reliable and keeps people from disobeying an influential

Machiavelli's writings were about what he felt politicians were truly about. That being: a world dominated by greed, ruthlessness, lies, intrigue, deception and even murder. The picture our media and our government paints for us, about many other country's governments, including Iraq, Iran, Russia, China, and many others, is one of such greed and deception. Many

He argues, “The local authorities of that kingdom will not invite you to invade, nor can you hope those around the ruler will rebel, making your task easier” (15). Machiavelli generates this claim from the notion that “love attaches men by ties of obligation, which, since men are wicked, they break whenever their interests are at stake” (52). For Machiavelli, appointed ministers are superior to established barons because the ministers have minimal support from the people they oversee, therefor deeming them as expendable under the prince. Because they are replaceable, they will not be as apt to betray their prince for personal gain, out of fear. Realistically addressing the situation of a besiegement and a rebellion, the real political weight lies in placating the people of the land, as any rebellious baron would need his own peoples’ support, regardless of his personal self-preservation. Fear will alway cause a society to crumble when compounded by an outside stressor, i.e. an enemy force. Naturally, humans are fear adverse, so they will fight to eradicate the ruler that they are afraid of with the very first legitimate chance they see. Thus, loyalty from love would drive the people of the land to fight for their prince, rather than against him, because they respect his rule.

ruler is feared than they may have followers, but they will also have enemies, and

One such leader, Cesare Borgia, was idolised immensely for his ability to seize and maintain power through corruption and unethical practices. Through the use of didactic tone in his factual reporting of Borgia “considered cruel yet his cruelty restored order to Romagna and united it”, he presents his point of view that “its much safer to be feared than loved”. Thus, Machiavelli is led to conclude that fear is always preferable to

In his writings, Machiavelli stresses the importance of authoritarianism and that it is vital to keep the people dependent on their ruler in order to avoid an uprising. To Machiavelli, people who were ruled by others had little to no say in any matter, their only role was to support the choices that were made. While the people never seemed like a likely threat, with Machiavelli writing that all they basically wanted was to avoid oppression and be protected (Machiavelli, pg. 45), he still stressed how those in charge should crush any inkling of free will. Coercion was a much needed asset to those in power, if they were able to get the people on their side with false promises, then there would be less of a possibility of being overthrown. Along with coercion, Machiavelli also emphasized the necessity to be both a lion and a fox writing, “A prince ought to be a fox in recognizing snares and a lion in driving off wolves” (Machiavelli, pg. 68).

The master mentality was concentrated in Machiavelli’s time after his writing, portraying admirable leaders as those who didn’t shift or stifle, and only showed the public their authority by disciplining those who betrayed them. Machiavelli was dire about this as he says “Therefore, a prince must not worry about the reproach of cruelty when it is a matter of keeping his subjects united and loyal.” (227) Yet in the eyes of Machiavelli, he would crave the church’s power, and try to adapt that into the morals of a ruler, from which he says “This could not have arisen from anything other than his inhuman cruelty, which, along with his many other abilities, made him always respected and terrifying in the eyes of his soldiers; and without that, to attain the same effect, his other abilities would not be sufficed.” (229) I think Machiavelli is mistaken because he overlooks the destruction such greed implodes upon itself. To have an icon, be it church or ruler, whiled feared is where an order is then craved constantly. Nietzsche, I think, held Machiavelli in high regards of being assertive in leadership, “In the political realm too, hostility has now become more spiritual – much more sensible, much more thoughtful, much more considerate.” (348) In this I think he feels that through all classes of life, from the animal kingdom to humans, there has to be a force to be beckoned with that of a

To be loved is to be appreciated and accepted as a person. To be feared is to watch the people you interact with cringe and strangle the peace of those that you come in contact with. Machiavelli’s quote, “It is much safer to be feared than loved” reflects on the fact that the people or colleagues of a ruler are able to take advantage of the ruler. The question of conspiracy does not even come up when those people or colleagues fear the repercussions. Machiavelli's advice would not be valid for today's political leader because to be feared as a leader is to be a tyrant. Though the idea of tyranny is the most effective, it is not beneficial for a group as a whole. Many examples of this concept has been shown all throughout history such as with