Niccolo Machiavelli : Better For A Prince To Be Feared Than Feared In The Prince

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 tackles the question “is it better to be loved or feared by people?”. Giving his insight on the matter, it is clear to see the benefits and downside to both. Every prince should desire to be perceived as a kind ruler rather than cruel one. However, he must avoid misusing or overusing his compassion. Cesare Borgia was considered cruel, yet his oppressiveness ended up resulting in peace and unity in Romagna (Machiavelli,trans; W. K. Marriott). Meanwhile on the other hand of mercifulness, when the Florentines tried to avoid cruelty, this allowed Pistoia to be destroyed (Machiavelli,trans; W. K. Marriott). Machiavelli argues once a

Machiavelli thinks it is better for the prince to be feared than loved. For a prince who is loved will be compassionate towards others, mainly his soldiers. When danger is at bay his men will hold him in the highest regard. Should an attack occur they will very quickly turn their backs on him. He may be viewed as weak and untrustworthy, thus easier to overtake. As he explains, “And men are less hesitant about harming someone who makes himself loved than one who makes himself feared because love is held together by a chain of obligation which, since men are a sorry lot, is broken on every occasion in which their own self-interest is concerned: but fear is held together by dread of punishment which will never abandon you” (p.46). If he is loved rather than hated he can never keep an army of soldiers under his command. However, he must not be so feared to the point he is hated to do so he must not take what does not belong to him, and keep his hands off the wives of his subjects.

Machiavelli argued, through his most notable work The Prince, that is most advantageous for a ruler to maintain appearances of compassion, but act rational and merciless. One of the core principles he repeated several times throughout his book was that although it be best to have both, leaders should value the fear of their subjects over their love. But a ruler had better be careful to not overdo it so as to not create resentment since men cannot be trusted to be loyal through affection: “[i]n general men are ungrateful, fickle, false, cowardly, covetous, dissimulating, hungry for profit and quick to evade danger” (The Prince, 17.4)1. The general

According to Machiavelli's view of how to be an effective leader, a ruler should be one who is feared but not hated. Machiavelli states that fear is better than love because love is unreliable. All of the reasons that Machiavelli gives relate to how human nature controls men and drives them to commit crimes in order to reach their goals and satisfy themselves.

A prince should master the art of war and dedicate the entirety of his rule to the mastery of that art or be prepared to lose control of his state. Is it better to be loved or feared? It would appear that Machiavelli would rather be feared than loved but, in my opinion, it seems that he only chooses fear over love due to his mistrust in man and inability to have everyone love him. In order to do what is in the best interests of the state, he believed fear must be instilled in people to discourage any disorder and remind people of the ramifications that follow misdeeds. Unfortunately, this mindset was developed by observing the rise to power of the Borgia family, which was known for corruption, greed, warmongering, deception, and murder. Should a Prince be honest or lie? The text explains that a prince should be honest but only when it is in the best interest of his state. While integrity is an important characteristic it is also unrealistic for a prince to fight a war honestly when his enemies use lies and deceit as a recipe for

In Chapter seventeen, Machiavelli discusses whether it is better to be loved than feared or the reverse. Princes need to keep a balance of merciful and cruel acts to keep disorder from arising (Machiavelli 134). “..it is much safer to be feared than loved...”(Machiavelli), to be loved is also important if one is a ruler of other people. “Nevertheless a prince ought to inspire fear in such a way that, if he does not win love, he avoids hatred..” (Machiavelli 134), princes should be respected and honored through their actions.

How is being feared rather than loved the superior quality that a leader should possess? Niccolò Machiavelli states in the “Qualities of the Prince” that “One should like to be both one and the other; but since it is difficult to join them together, it is much safer to be feared than to be loved” (14). Determining which of these two qualities a leader should possess had been a topic of discussion for centuries. So what makes Machiavelli’s work any different? First off, Machiavelli was an Italian diplomat and a political philosopher, who wrote about politics and power. The biggest element that separates Machiavelli’s work from other philosophers is that he focuses his attention on the goal of power. While doing so, not only did he learn how

In The Prince by Machiavelli, he explains how a prince must acquire and maintain power in his nation. As he further explains the “ideal” prince, he states that a prince must have characteristsics that seperates him from other men in his nation. “ The answer is, of course, that it would be best to be both loved and feared. But since the two rarely come together, anyone compelled to choose will find greater security in being feared than in being loved.” ( Machiavelli, 60).

His immediate dismissal of the power of evoking positive emotions in followers fails to stand on its own. In every claim leading up to this one, Machiavelli will support it with historical evidence. However, when it comes to dismissing love in his citizens (not military men), he does not offer historical evidence. The real weakness in his assumption lies in him underestimating the power that love can hold between a leader and his subjects. Evoking love leads to loyalty and support, two powerful things that leaders need to keep a hold on their territory, while fear only incites fear.

In Chapter 17, of The Prince, by Machiavelli, he discusses how a prince needs to find a balance between showing power but not being cruel and being loved but not being a push over. “A prince should therefore disregard the reproach of being thought cruel where it enables him to keep his subjects united and obedience” (Machiavelli,

When reading Niccolo Machiavelli's The Prince, one can't help but grasp Machiavelli's argument that morality and politics can not exist in the same forum. However, when examining Machiavelli's various concepts in depth, one can conclude that perhaps his suggested violence and evil is fueled by a moral end of sorts. First and foremost, one must have the understanding that this book is aimed solely at the Prince or Emperor with the express purpose of aiding him in maintaining power. Therefore, it is essential to grasp his concepts of fortune and virtue. These two contrary concepts reflect the manner in which a Prince should govern while minimizing all chance and uncertainty. This kind of governing demands violence to be taken, however

In the text, The Prince, Niccolo Machiavelli talks about the power that a leader must imply over the followers in order to maintain the control. Machiavelli states that there are certain ways in which people in leadership maintain the power; one of them is to avoid being sentimental toward other people; another way is that leaders should be able to take control over people by using cruelty, and making people to fear, but acknowledging that there must be a limit in which people use this cruelty. As long as The Prince ( or any other ruler) is helping the people to benefit themselves from his leadership, he is making the correct use of these ways to maintain the power. However, there could be doubts over the power that an individual implies over the people, since people could look for the weaknesses that this individual possesses. So, in order for a ruler to maintain the power he/she has to avoid being sentimental, use cruelty in a moderate way, and benefit the followers as he proceeds with the leadership.

While Machiavelli emphasizes power over in relations between the political elite, he discusses a different kind of power in the relations between a prince and the general public. Machiavelli notes that a prince can share power with the people, since a prince can trust the people much more than he can trust the nobles. Nobles "can not be satisfied if a ruler acts honorably but the people can be thus satisfies, because their aims are more honorable than those of the nobles are: for the latter only want to oppress and the former only want to avoid being oppressed" (p.35). The people are not unforgiving and greedy so the prince can place more trust in the people. Since the public can be trusted, the prince can empower the people. An empowered public will protect the ruler rather than overthrow him. Machiavelli suggests providing people with power in terms of arms, since "when you arm them, these weapons become your own" (p. 72). In this way power is an increasing resource, sharing power with the people can result in greater power for the people and for the prince.

This is not to say, however, that Machiavelli intended the prince to be indulgent and benevolent to the people, he says quite clearly in Chapter 17, "…it is much more safe to be feared than loved, when you have to choose between the two…" Machiavelli's reasoning was that an excess of clemency towards the subjects when they do something wrong would lead to widespread crime, hurting the whole community. Therefore, being cruel and severe to those who deserve it would allow for the greatest utility (Chapter 17). This view on how to maintain relations with the populace is both logical and realistic. However, Machiavelli draws a clear distinction between being feared and hated. He writes, " A prince must make himself feared in such a manner that … he shall at least not incur their hatred, for being the feared, and not hated, can go very well together," (Chapter 17). The way that a ruler can earn his subjects hatred, says Machiavelli, is if he steals or harms their property. Therefore, by being severe and cruel in his punishments he inspires fear. In being feared, the prince further secures his empowerment, for none of his subjects dare to attempt to take it from him.