Machiavelli Essay In the Prince , Machiavelli argues that leader should be loved and feared, but that if you have to pick one, pick fear. This is a very controversial topic that has many sides and biases to it. Machiavelli states solid examples in the the text to support his claims. This topic can relate to modern day leaders and how they use these traits to govern their people. I personally believe that it is much better to be loved than fear. Both opinion have their pros and cons. Machiavelli believes it's better to be feared because your people will be less likely to turn on you and stay loyal no matter what. “So long as he keeps his subjects united and loyal, a prince ought not to mind gaining the reputation for cruelty…” This shows that Machiavelli has a cruel nature when it comes to governing his people. Why he does this is because if rulers show to much compassion toward their people will take their kindness for weakness. …show more content…
A modern example of one of these leaders is Adolph Hitler. Hitler was one of the most feared men in the world during his ruling. He was feared by millions but loved by his people. Most germans during his time would never even dare to question his authority or how he ran his empire. This is a prime example of how fear makes a ruler successful. If you look at Hitler's accomplishment he controlled one of the most powerful armies, invaded most of europe, and leading Germany out of their economic depressions. He portrayed all the characteristics of a cruel leader that Machiavelli describes. Korean leader Kim Jong Un is very strict and feared by the koran people and is still the most loved and respected man in korea. Most generous leaders tend to lack control of their people and are often betrayed by their subjects. Mahatma Gandhi was considered too lenient and open handed to his subjects, this resulted in his assassination by his own
This compare and contrast essay will focus on the views of leadership between Mirandolla and Machiavelli. Mirandolla believes that leadership should not be false and that it should follow the rule of reason. He believes that leaders should strive for the heavens and beyond. On the other hand, Machiavelli believed that leadership comes to those who are crafty and forceful. He believed that leaders do not need to be merciful, humane, faithful or religious; they only need to pretend to have all these qualities. Despite both of them being philosophers, they have drastically different views on leadership, partially because of their views on religion are different. Mirandolla was very religious, and Machiavelli was a pragmatist, which means that he was not interested in religion.
Machiavelli’s advice to a prince who wanted to hold power is that they have to instill fear into the people. He believes fear is important because it restrains men, as they fear being punished. Love will never help you hold power because it attaches people to promises. Machiavelli believes that since humans are wicked, they will break these promises whenever their interests is at stake. Men will devote everything to you if you serve their interests, but as soon as you need help, they turn on you. Therefore, creating fear in them is the perfect strategy. I feel like Machiavelli is being sarcastic and did this to get attention. He knew his way of thinking was different and would get the attention of the people.
Niccolo Machiavelli believes in a strong government. The leader should be strong and feared. I believe he gets this idea from the fear of God; no one is supposed to question God because he is so feared, and in the same sense, no one should question a strong leader. Machiavelli realizes that the leader should be feared, but not hated. A hated leader will probably be killed in a rebellion. One also can not be loved. Any compassion towards your citizens will make them believe you are weak, and they will rebel. He thinks a very strong military is necessary at all times, and that powerful arms should be available and in hand. This idea is similar to that of right wing America and our friends, the National Rifle Association, who believe assault rifles are America’s pastime. The nation should always be prepared for war, and should always be searching for new lands to conquer. T...
Lao-Tzu recognizes what possible actions will result in, and he confides in the people to make them feel apart of the government, rather than controlled by someone who should serve as example. By letting events transpire without attempting to sway them one way or another, a leader displays their understanding that “the universe is forever of control” (verse 30, p. 26) and the people feel more content in an unadministered world. Moreover, Lao-Tzu explains that in order to govern the people without manipulating them, it is best to let them find their own way without conveying superiority. However, Machiavelli disagrees, and through the enforcement of a cold leadership, a ruler is more inclined to keep his subjects and loyal. He believes that unpredictability will elude enemies and subjects from taking advantage of their leader, and he does so by deceiving the people and going back on his word. Machiavelli writes, “without that reputation he will never keep an army united or prepared for any combat” (46). But, Machiavelli is battle-hungry and prefers to be feared rather than loved. In order to indicate where a leader stands among their subjects, Lao-Tzu leads with an easy-going manner, while Machiavelli denotes vicious behavior—both prove to benefit the kingdom, but by producing
Some may argue that what Machiavelli is saying that subjects should be cared for, but based on the harsh diction like crush and cripple, when speaking about how to treat the people that pose a threat and due to the repetitive nature these comments, it is evident that Machiavelli advises a ruler not to care for the people, but to manipulate the people to keep the country or community
According to text 2 one of Machiavelli's quotes came up about being feared more than loved and the response to that was " A leader must build his relationship with the people upon mutual respect, more than any other thing. It is not fear or
What is the attitude of a true leader? We all have different opinions toward the idea of a “true leader”. Some say a true leader must be loved, others say they must be feared. Some say they should be compassionate towards humanity, others say they should be indifferent. One of the famous theories of leadership is proposed in Machiavelli’s The Prince. Tempered through strife and conflict, characters in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar are forced to undertake harsh, Machiavellian stances to augment their authority. For those who command Machiavellian traits, it is nothing more than a visage–an image that does not reveal the manifestation of the failure to implement Machiavelli’s advice on ruling, where their downfall can be traced.
...chy. His desire for order is not universally definite, but depends on circumstance of those and their need to be governed. His ideology in regards to combining the best of the best forms of government is relatable to Aristotle's idea of politeia and combining both democracy and oligarchy to the best government. Machiavelli's ideas are still held evident today especially in the arena of economics. His question of whether it is better to be feared than loved is a common question tied back to economists in regards to research about happiness. In this same regards, economists often use Machiavelli's argument of “the end justifies the means”, although the end never becomes answered by modern day economists. Machiavelli is rightfully known as one of the founders of modern political science creating ideals that are universal and continue to be evident as time progresses.
Hence a prince who wants to keep his authority must learn how not to be good, and use that knowledge, or refrain from using it, as necessity requires.” While he argues that politicians who try to be good in defiance of the good of the state are not successful politicians, he also acknowledges the importance of necessity in immoral actions. He never argues that immoral actions can ever be considered right, only that they may be required as a politician. Machiavelli states that the ends can justify the means, however he never encourages violence. He also argues against excessive or prolonged violence, emphasizing necessity. He argues against excessive violence in that it can be detrimental to the state. Machiavelli advises that a prince should carefully calculate all the wicked deeds he needs to do to secure his power, and then execute them all in one stroke, such that he need not commit any more wickedness for the rest of his reign. In this way, his subjects will slowly forget his cruel deeds and his reputation can recover. Princes who fail to do this, who hesitate in their ruthlessness, find that their problems mushroom over time and they are forced to commit wicked deeds throughout their reign. Thus they continuously mar their reputations and alienate their people. He states that it is better to be feared than loved, but not at the price of the politician’s reputations or relationship with their people. He also refers to violence as criminal virtue and stresses the need to utilize it only when necessary. While he advocates for the use of violence rather than a course of nonviolence, he specifies that it is for the greater good. If violence is withheld, then the politician is forced to do more wicked deeds. Even though he acknowledges the necessity to commit bad deeds, he is in consensus Plato that ideally the politician should be
Machiavelli believes that a government should be very structured, controlled, and powerful. He makes it known that the only priorities of a prince are war, the institutions, and discipline. His writings describes how it is more important for a prince to be practical than moral. This is shown where he writes, "in order to maintain the state he is often obliged to act against his promise, against charity, against humanity, and against religion" (47). In addition, Machiavelli argues that a prince may have to be cunning and deceitful in order to maintain political power. He takes the stance that it is better for the prince to be feared than loved. His view of how a government should run and his unethical conduct are both early signs of dictatorship.
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.
Machiavelli's realization of the penultimate import of the people is probably most significant reason his book holds so much influence on realpolitik. He writes, "it is essential for a prince to possess the good will and affections his people, otherwise he will be utterly without support in time of adversity." (Chapter 9). Clearly, Machiavelli understands the source of power within a princely republic lay with the people, whom the prince must constantly court. No other political philosopher before him had ever given much significance to those being governed. The reason that Machiavelli felt that the subjects were vital to the prince maintaining his rule was because the implications of earning the hatred and ill will of the people are dire for the political future of both the state and the prince. Of the two sources of attack the prince must fear, one is a conspiracy from within inspired by the hatred of the people (Chapter 19). Additionally, the prince must be aware that actions of his intermediaries can reflect upon himself. That is, if his army is cruel and brutish towards the people, the people will turn their hatred upon the prince, who is seen to tacitly condone the actions of the army. ...
He says “For everyone can see but few can feel” (Machiavelli 24), meaning that people can see the “good” but not know that it is really an appearance. People are easily accepting of what they are shown and believe these things to be truths. Machiavelli’s point of view is; if people are easily fooled into believing things, then why must a leader truly be good if he can simply appear to be good. Machiavelli says in verse 24 of The Prince, “Ordinary people are always deceived by appearances and by the outcome of anything.” According to Machiavelli, it is very important to not be hated by the people, it is much better to be feared than hated. He gives three points of instruction to avoid being hated and prevent conspiracy against him: “You do not deprive them of their property or their honor,” do not be considered “ changeable, frivolous, effeminate, cowardly, or irresolute,” and “he should maintain himself in such a way that no man could imagine that he can deceive or cheat him” (Machiavelli
and when it (danger) comes nearer to you they turn away? (649). Machiavelli reinforces the Prince?s need to be feared by stating: ?? men are less hesitant about harming someone who makes himself loved than one who makes himself feared?? (649).
According to Niccolo Machiavelli “if you have to make a choice, to be feared is much safer than to be loved” (225). Machiavelli was the first philosopher of the Renaissance, and wrote The Prince which argued that leaders must do anything necessary to hold on to power. The main reason it is better to be feared is because men are evil, rotten and will only do things that benefit themselves. Men only think of themselves and it is for this reason fear can control them and keep them loyal to a leader. Since loyalty through love can be easily broken because it involves no punishment, loyalty through fear is the better choice because it involves the “dread of punishment, from which [the subjects] can never escape” (Machiavelli 226). Machiavelli goes on to say that the great leader Hannibal took control of his immense army, because the soldiers saw Hannibal as a fearsome and cruel person, thus, making them loyal to him. Machiavelli in addition gives an example of a leader who chose not to be feared and cruel: “Scipio, an outstanding man not only among those of his own time, but in all recorded history; yet his armies revolted in Spain, for no other reason than his excessive leniency in allowing his soldiers more freedom than military discipline permits”(226). Failure to be cruel and fearsome will cause a leader to lose control of his soldiers, and it will cause the leader’s soldiers to revolt. Hannibal was the better leader; even though he was cruel, he was more merciful in reality than Scipio because he did not allow any disorders to happen.