It is difficult to come up with one conclusion, in my opinion, about whether a prince should be loved or feared. If he is loved he is supposed to have the loyalty of his subjects, as well as their support. Yet is seems if a prince is only loved and nothing else that he may, at one point in time, loose this loyalty and his subjects may rebel and turn against him. This is the point in which I agree with what Machiavelli has to say. The way I see it (and it is obvious Machiavelli also sees it this way) is if a prince is feared he gains his subjects’ respect. Then in turn from gaining their respect he gains their obedience, which then becomes their loyalty. This is a different loyalty than that of being a loved prince, for a feared prince will never loose his subjects’ loyalty because they are all too scared of the repercussions of their actions if they were to attempt to rebel. I believe a good prince is both loved and feared; he just has to know when he wants to be loved and when he needs to be feared. Although if I must pick only one quality, I would say a feared prince is a better ruler. My opinion is in agreement with Machiavelli’s which states, “I reply 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 when one of the two must be lacking" (Maciavelli 44).
Having such a strong power over one’s subjects that the prince actually scares them out of doing something against his will, seems to me, to be the ultimate ruler. In my opinion, the ultimate ruler/prince is one whom unites this army and people, keeps them in line, and rules fairly for many years. Although, I believe a prince can be strict and feared without having to resort to cruelty all of the time. For if he rules with only cruelty he will become hated, which is the opposite of what he is striving for. If the prince must be cruel, I think he should make an example of an individual who broke his rules in public; this way he sends one clear message to all his other subjects’, the message being, “This is what will happen if you break my rules.” By only having to be cruel once in a public example, the prince has put fear into the mind’s of his subjects so they stay in line, and now he will not have to resort to more cruelty, thus not becoming hated. My opinion stated above is in best agreement with this quote of Machiavelli’s, “And if he must take someone’s life, he should do so when there is proper justification and manifest cause; but, above all, he should avoid the property of the others, for men forget more quickly the death of their father than the loss of their patrimony” (Machiavelli 44). This quote is speaking about how to be cruel, but it also speaks of being cruel in moderation, which in turn agrees with my point stated earlier.
Thus ruling with a strict upper hand but being gentle is the best way to rule. For being only loved by one’s subjects, the prince may be vulnerable to disrespect and loss of loyalty, because love is only promise, and promises are meant to be broken. “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 a dread of punishment which will never abandon you” (Machiavelli 44). This is a quote that reiterates the point that is it better to be feared than loved; for a loved prince will fall while the feared prince will reign all.
Works Citied section for quotes in response
Machiavelli, Niccolo. "The Qualities of the Prince." A World of Ideas: Essential Reading for College Writers.
Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. Trans. Peter Bondanella and Mark Musa. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martin's,
2006. pp 35-51.
3 comments:
I don't think a prince should be feared, but loved. Jessica says that, with fear, people with always obey a prince. This is not true. At some point, people are bound to rebel against the tyranny.
If a prince is loved, he will gain respect from his subjects. This respect will become loyalty. If the prince keeps on leading the country/city-state properly, there isn't as much reason for the people to rebel, or lose faith in him.
It seems to me that a loved leader has a better chance of maintaining his or her leadership than a feared one; this goes against what Machiavelli says, but it makes more sense.
The perfect ruler would follow some of Machiavelli's guidelines, but also Lao-Tzu's guidelines as well; both have their strengths and weaknesses.
Jessica I can see why you would chose a feared prince over a loved one. But I have to say a loved prince is also respected, because in order to love a person you should learn to respect them first. So with that said I think a loved prince can also be a great ruler.
A prince should be both. In my eyes I feel that yes a prince shouldnt be so mean that everyone hates him but he should be strong and stand ground. Just to let others know that "Hey dont mess with me or my country. You leave us alone and I'll leave you alone"
Post a Comment