In The Prince, Machiavelli explains several principles for a leader to follow and establishes that is better to feared than loved if one cannot balance both. A ruler that is well-loved is not always respected and can easily lose control of his people, especially when others have devious motives. By drilling fear and avoiding hatred from one’s subjects, a leader is able to stay in power and at the same time still have the respect of his people. As a leader there will always be adversities, and doing what is best for the state of affairs should always come first. There is nothing worse than obtaining the detestation of the people, and ultimately losing control of power.
Overall Machiavelliâ€™s perspective does seem harsh and cold at times, but he proves to be an avid supporter of popular rule throughout his writings. He believes in popular rule so strongly that he states it is acceptable to use immoral means to achieve a peaceful government. If the citizens are not happy and feel their ruler disregards their wishes then the populace could become enraged and therefore, the ruler would not be executing his power of indirect popular rule. Machiavelli states that in order to achieve the necessity of popular rule, a leader will have to step outside a moral sphere and do whatever it takes to achieve popular rule. Machiavelli puts clear and strict limits on acts of immorality in leadership.
If the magistrates do revolt, the prince will be unable to assume absolute power, because the people are used to obeying the magistrates’ orders rather than the prince’s orders. Machiavelli also argued that people will always try to advise the people for their own interests only, such as the magistrates; this is why the prince should only trust in his own ability. Machiavelli did stated that the prince has the choice to take advices from wise magistrates and listen to their opinions, however, they must do that on his own terms in which the prince must constantly questioned them and also form his own conclusions. The prince should also be cautious of flatterers because they may be a danger to him since “He [the prince], who does otherwise is either overthrown by flatterers, or is so often changed by varying opinions that he falls into contempt” ( The Prince, Chapter XXIII, pp. 1).
Pacifists believe that war and violence of any kind should be unacceptable and that this nation should never be at war. They believe that negotiation and compromise as a way to achieve peace and harmony is a better way to solve conflicts rather than violence. People who are not committed to pacifism sometimes think that the best way to solve a failure of foreign policy is to go war. At times, military intervention is necessary, especially when the target is a person or a nation that threatens the welfare and livelihood of millions of people. It’s also understandable if military action is in self-defense of an imminent threat of our nation.
In some respects, it is impossible to have one without the other. To be loved would imply weakness in one’s leadership; to be feared would bring the assumption that a ruler is heartless and uncaring about his people and their welfare. With too much love comes the want for a more respectable, terrifying figure that could not ever possibly be overthrown or taken advantage of, and vice versa. It is the human habit to want what we cannot have, as the proverbial grass of politics will always seem greener on the other side. If one were to choose to be either feared or loved, their best bet would be to instill fear in their constituents.
A Prince must be strong, use violence and force, and be cunning. Machiavelli made a huge transition from the Platonic idea of the ideal leader when he presented the strong, dominant, conservative leader who valued violence and deceit to win over subjects. "Rulers should be truthful, keep promises, and the like when doing so will not harm the state, and that they should generally appear to have the traditional virtues. But since the goal of the ruler is to conquer and preserve the state, he should not shrink from wrongdoing when the preservation of the state requires this." (Abrams) He also dislike the fact that Plato created theories of what the ideal society should be along with its leader and wanted to focus more on how the world really functioned.
This has supported by his writing that he believed that a successful form of government depend on the good relations between the people and its leader. Also he strongly believed that once cannot have total control and that things would be run as its course when the t... ... middle of paper ... ...ill just do what the leader ordered because they fear the consequences of not doing it. Notably, Lao Tzu’s perceptual teaching and Machiavelli’s rationality tactics were both too intense and harsh; either method will not persist long in today’s modern politic government where people believe more in freedom. However, it is because both Lao Tzu’s and Machiavelli’s ideas were too extreme, that the most effective government is to combine both ideas from the two philosophers in order to balance out. Lao believed that the less the leader or government intervenes; the happier the people.
For the sake of avoiding from the war, people construct the state. Duty of the state is -similar to Hobbes’s ideas- protecting individual’s life and properties. Of Spontaneous Moral Laws The root of the moral laws is inherent ... ... middle of paper ... ... everyone should make their decision by their own, otherwise it will be a dictate. Eventhough I definetely foresee the goodness of someone, for instance I might have a knowledge that that he hasn’t and would effect him, It wouldn’t be enough to direct his actions and life. I admit that everyone can’t make the best choises for themselves.
“To ignore good, evil, religion, morality and immortality”. Machiavelli said you have to adjust to his actions in order to strengthen his state One thing that stood out to me was the question weather it is better to be loved more then feared. That is a great question he bought up. I think every politician wants to to be loved more then feared but, it is much safer for a leader to be feared then loved. As he talked about rather being feared he knows what decisions are going to be okay to make and not decide to harsh on one.
They tend to look at the risk of war, and try to find some benefit of going to war. (Fearon 379-380). Fearon makes emphasized that leaders could bargain and avoid war overall, but leaders tend to overlook the cost of the lives of the people at war. (Fearon 381). Fearon argues that bluffing for leaders helps a state hide their weakness and show their strength in front of different states.