Essay about Machiavellian Concepts on the Use of Fear

Machiavelli and Hobbes shared the same views on that the Sovereign or Prince should implement rules that benefit them first while having the best interest of the people in mind. The difference being that the sovereign for Hobbes should exude the collective will of all the people while Machiavelli would argue for a Prince who would make more difficult decisions that might not be in line with the wants of the people in order to achieve certain ends. If fear is what keeps the people alive for Hobbes; than Machiavelli on the use of fear through punishment on behalf of the prince is in line with his philosophy... “The bond of love is one which men, wretched creatures they are, break when it is to their advantage to do so; but fear is strengthened by a dread of punishment which is always effective” The use of fear by the Sovereign runs very powerfully with Hobbes so that the people will

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

Machiavelli also presents the idea that the power of a leader depends more on the qualities of the man than on of god. Thats the matter, loved and feared-qualities need there limits the same way as anything else in a social relation. Machiavelli himself stating that a man who makes himself loved than who makes himself feared; the reason is that love is a link to obligation, which men, because they are rotten, and will break any time soon. Machiavelli complicates the nation of good as purely subordinate power, arguing that the excess of “good” can actually do harm. In this case too much clemency can lead to uprisings and civil war. Cruelty what Machiavelli believes in, states that it can serve the greater good. I personally disagree with Machiavelli's text, I think love is stronger than fear. A commander loved by his soldiers will defeat a commander feared by his soldiers in almost all battles, but the feared commander is less subject to arbitrary chance. Its not only love that can destroy a man, so can fear.

Throughout The Prince, Machiavelli encourages the idea that a fear leader is a good leader. Machiavelli makes the point that a good leader knows that it is, “far safer to be feared than loved” (Machiavelli 43) because love allows for weakness. It is easy to keep people under control and in line when they fear their leader because they do not want to have to face consequences that come with “doing wrong”. When a leader is loved, some many look at this as a weakness. Those who fear their leader are is less likely to curate rebellions and revolts because they know that their leader is not afraid of applying punishment. When a ruler is too kind to their subjects it leaves them vulnerable and they are easily taken advantage of, which threatens their position. For a good leader should, “desire to be accounted merciful and not cruel”, and needs to,

However, Hobbes and Machiavelli both illustrate the danger if fear is not dealt with properly. For Hobbes, if the sovereign doesn’t provide security to the individuals, then fear will emerge once again amongst them. This will lead to a state of total chaos where once again no one can do anything as they all must defend for their lives. Machiavelli states that if a prince utilizes fear incorrectly, it will eventually lead to their downfall. If they are hated or despised especially by the common people, then anyone can overthrow him as they would be admired and

Machiavelli believe that fear allows a ruler to be in power, but does not mean they he is hated. Whereas love can lead to hatred because a ruler should not inspire love in others because they will turn against them once they do not fear their

The concept of fear as a tool and as a condition is present throughout the Prince. In what is likely his most famous quote, Machiavelli argues that “…it is much safer to be feared than loved…” (1950, p. 61). This implies that inspiring fear in one’s subjects is of great importance to the Prince, and that once again the means of doing this are secondary to the end goals. He also argues that the Prince himself should have a healthy amount of fear, both of his subjects and external threats, and that this fear will allow the Prince to preserve himself and therefore the state which he presides over (p. 67). Socrates would disagree with this fundamentally, for him it is not true that “…where there is fear there is also reverence…”, he would argue that in fact fear and reverence stand in sharp contrast to one another (Plato, 1987, p. 35). Using fear as a tool would not enable one to reach the ideal that Socrates espouses. He also addresses fear as a condition of a ruler by saying that a man should not consider life and death when making decisions, but again should only look to whether his actions are good and just. For him “…to be afraid of death is only another form of thinking that one is wise when one is not…” (pp. 59-60). Both Machiavelli and Socrates see fear as a part of human nature, but where Machiavelli sees fear as a weapon, Socrates sees weakness. A Prince that lived in a state of fear, while also using fear in order to gain and

Many would agree that it is better to be loved than to be feared. However, Machiavelli says that “I found a quote, but lost it” (x). Although there have been many great leaders who have been loved, the best leaders are those who were feared. Many may disagree, but ______ ________ ______. In conclusion, I believe that it is better for a leader to be feared rather than

However, it has been mentioned in the news that Donald Trump seems to be the most Machiavellian of all due to his brashness and challenging of the current form of the government (Cuzan 2016). A specific Machiavellian principle I’ve seen Trump put to play is the “it’s better to be feared than love” idea. Due to his brashness not only with his words but with his ideal policies, a lot of people have been afraid of the absurdity and possibility that what he says may actually happen. The fear seemed to work but only because of the fact that his followers loved how he made others fear. The people who fear him are different from the people who love him so it is unclear if it is better to be feared or loved. Another principle he used is knowing “how to manipulate the minds of men by shrewdness.” He accomplishes this by being politically incorrect in the way he speaks. This seems to motivate some of his followers, but overall, people just seem to be offended about the things a future possible leader does not filter what he tells the whole world. It gives him a dictator effect, and that means the Machiavellian practices he utilized were not effective.

In conclusion, Machiavelli believed that a leader had to be feared and powerful in order to flourish.

He says that it is safer to be feared because the sole purpose of a ruler is to keep order. Machiavelli is not saying that it is necessarily better to be feared, he is saying that it is safer because the people

I have read up on this particular argument and found some very interesting things on 'www.psycologytoday.com' here is what I think on fear in particular and how it affects people with great power 'I have been a student of motivation for more than three decades, and I can think of thousands of motivations that tempt us daily: love, hunger, sex, comfort, status, and so on. However, the top motivator is fear, It is such a strong driver of our behavior that it may form the basis for every other motivator in our lives. Fear is a prime motivator because it is rooted in our childhood experiences, and it moves us subconsciously.' There is no human in this world that would not react to fear in such an instinctual way if a man or women in power were put in a very fearful situation then they are going to react in a way that it's best for them to find their way out of the situation selfishly keeping themselves out of harms way and throwing anybody else into the fire of

All animals experience fear - an overwhelmingly disturbing force of the mind that has the power to sway, distort and rupture the conventions of the psyche. Any animal incapable of fear would have been hard pressed to survive, regardless of its size, speed, or other attributes. Fear alerts us to dangers that threaten our well-being and sometimes our very lives. Sensing fear, we respond by running away, by hiding, or by preparing to ward off the danger. The concept of fear in political terms was first brought into light by Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli, who was an Italian Renaissance historian, politician, diplomat, philosopher, humanist, and writer. He has often been called the founder of modern political science. He was for many years a senior official in the Florentine Republic, with responsibilities in diplomatic and military affairs. He also wrote comedies, carnival songs, and poetry. He wrote his most renowned work The Prince (Il Principe) in 1513 during the turbulent days of the Renaissance Medici’s, as a set of pragmatic instructions to a new prince on how to gain and retain power. The originality of his ideas has been challenged and shown to go back at least to the Athenians, yet the influence of Machiavelli 's words still rings around the world.

Machiavelli exclaims that ¨ït is better to be feared than loved¨ and he is exceedingly correct. The reason for most of the terroristic

Fear is a negative influence because people will make people dangerous or cowardly. If they are