Machiavelli's The Prince and its Role in Politics in the Renaissance

Leaders fall into two categories, those who are loved, and those who are feared. Many teachers have to choose between being loved or feared, debating the pros and cons of each as they rise to power— being loved bringing adoration and a positive future with the country as a leader, but allowing for easy manipulation to maintain the adoration. Fear allows for the leader to shape the country in whatever way that is best, but without withstanding appreciation from the citizens that they rule over. This problem was prevalent in China’s leader, Mao Zedong. As he rose to power, Mao faced the choice of being a loved leader or feared. Mao used the love of people to rise to power. Power through love is much more deathly, but effective than fear.

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

In book seventeen he says, “Returning to the question of being feared or loved, I come to the conclusion that, men loving according to their own will and fearing according to that of the prince, a wise prince should establish himself on that which is in his own control and not in that of others; he must endeavor only to avoid hatred, as is noted.” (Book 17) The cusp of fear and hatred is easier to balance than trying to control the love of a populace. The leader should never rely on methods of state craft that aren’t in the direct control of the leader. Otherwise consistency is impossible to be enforced.

If someone is loved as a leader, they have a certain image to uphold. If people disagree with their choices, they may try and get that person out of office. This is shown in The Tragedy Of Julius Caesar during Brutus' funeral speech for Caesar, he solemnly confessed "as he was/ valiant, I honor him: but, as he was ambitious, I/ slew him." (III, 2, 23-24) Brutus is saying that even though he loved Caesar, he killed him, because he was too ambitious. This means the ambition ruined Caesar's image to Brutus, causing Caesar's death. This is important because if people rule by fear, they won't have an image to uphold, and that can prevent their rule from ending prematurely. Moreover, love can make people neglectful towards major decisions that the leader makes.

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,

Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King Jr., Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill, Theodore Roosevelt, Jesus Christ, Mahatma Ghandi, Lucifer; the list could go on. All these men had one thing in common; they were extraordinary leaders who gained loyal followers. These men also had several differences; the biggest being that some were destructive with their power and their ideals weren’t exactly on par with normality. Yet, what made people follow and respect the wishes of leaders who were destructive and insane? The attraction to these powerful leaders is found in the way that they are able to fill a void in that individual’s life. This void could consist of longing for safety and care, being lonely, or even missing

Machiavelli concentrated more on the way things should be and how to manipulate them for his own personal gain rather than for the betterment of the state. He was well-known for being a political thinker who believed that outcomes justified why things happened. A key aspect of Machiavelli’s concept of the Prince was that “men must either be caressed or annihilated” (Prince, 9). What Machiavelli meant by

If a leader must choose to be feared or loved what should they choose? On one hand being feared gives that leader control over society because the people fear punishment from the leader. Feared leaders usually have a strong military force and presence. On the other hand if a leader is loved they will have control over the people because society agrees because they listen to the society's ideas. A loved leader will be forgiven by the people when they make mistakes they will also have more trust from the people. Being loved as a leader is much better than being feared.

Machiavelli addresses the topic of whether it is safer to be cruel or loved. He states:

Machiavelli did not energize the thought in confiding in the ones that lead, however, “[…] men are a sorry lot and will not keep their promises to you, you likewise need not keep yours to them.” (230) He hoped for strategy, injustice, and unlawfulness from his kin and composed his tenets all things considered under the beliefs of being a pragmatist. While discovering “they are ungrateful, fickle, simulators and deceivers, avoiders of danger, greedy for gain” (228) the function of Prince was to hold and manage opposed to giving the general population a chance to thrive or set a

If a prince chooses to be loved, he chooses a risky path. Love comes and goes. Love is not reliable. If a prince chooses fear, he manages to “scare” people into respecting him. A prince must do what he can to instill fear into his people, but he also must strive to escape being hated.

Niccolo Machiavelli stressed that “one ought to be both feared and loved, but as it is difficult for the two to go together, it is much safer to be feared than loved…for love is held by a chain of obligation which, men being selfish, is broken whenever it serves their purpose; but fear is maintained by a dread of punishment which never fails.” He felt that a true leader must be cunning and deceptive, winning the hearts of his people through power and influence. If he could not be liked, he could at least get by knowing he has intimidated these below him into submission. However rash or cruel this may seem, Machiavelli’s argument is not one to be countered easily.

affective ruler should be loved and feared at the same time. But since its hard to be

"Machiavelli identifies the interests of the prince with the interests of the state." He felt that it was human nature to be selfish, opportunistic, cynical, dishonest, and gullible, which in essence, can be true. The state of nature was one of conflict; but conflict, Machiavelli reasoned, could be beneficial under the organization of a ruler. Machiavelli did not see all men as equal. He felt that some men were better suited to rule than others. I believe that this is true in almost any government. However, man in general, was corrupt -- always in search of more power. He felt that because of this corruptness, an absolute monarch was necessary to insure stability. Machiavelli outlined what characteristics this absolute ruler should have in The Prince. One example of this can be seen in his writings concerning morality. He saw the Judeo-Christian values as faulty in the state's success. "Such visionary expectations, he held, bring the state to ruin, for we do not live in the world of the "ought," the fanciful utopia, but in the world of "is". The prince's role was not to promote virtue, but to insure security. He reasoned that the Judeo-Christian values would make a ruler week if he actually possessed them, but that they could be useful in dealing with the citizens if the prince seemed to have these qualities. Another example of Machiavelli's ideal characteristics of a prince

A political leader should not worry about being perceived as cruel if his actions are just and done in order to keep his people united because with these “very few” examples of cruelty, he will appear more merciful than the merciful leader who lets acts of cruelty go on without intervention.