What is your response to Machiavelli's philosophy?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
A place for students to engage in academic discussion, the discovery of myriad points of view on history/current events, and the elusive, yet worthy pursuit of truth. Warning: The brightest and best students enter here.
Do the positive aspects of nationalism outweight the negative ones?
Teacher
Mr. Houston
About Me
- Chip Houston
- Est. 1976
Mr. Houston's Book Recommendations
- Visioneering by Andy Stanley
- Lincoln on Leadership
- The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership by John C. Maxwell
- The 33 Strategies of War by Robert Greene
- The Founding Brothers by Joseph J Ellis
- The Long Walk by Slavomir Rawicz
- The Old and New Testaments
Chattahoochee High School or its employees are not responsible for any content located outside of the designated Chattahoochee High School class websites.
44 comments:
I dont think Vader is a good example of what Machiavelli was saying. Vader is more do what i say or i will choke you from across the room type leader lol. That's just flat out fear right there. Now Yoda, Yoda is good. He's respected and he can own anyone.
It's better to be feared. Like Machiavelli said, fear and hate don't always go hand in hand. In order to gain respect, people need a healthy fear of you. However, I'm not promoting Qin or Assyrian tactics because those are too strict, but something like the Han (only maybe slightly modified).
By the way, nice picture for the article. :)
haha go Yoda
It's better to be loved than feared. A leader should show love in order to gain respect and not scare people. Like we talked about in class, ruling by fear has bad after effects unlike by love which has good ones. Not only does it benefit the ruler but also the people. Love is probably more important because everone likes being loved more than scared!
Being loved doesn't usually come with more respect, fear instills respect. Fear is a greater motivator because one knows something bad is going to happen if e/she doesn't listen. This contrasts with love, where if a task is incomplete the person is more likely to be forgiven or pardoned instead of punished. These small details help determine how you are to be treated. I heard one time, "you teach people how to treat you" (I forgot who said it) but it is true. Your actions dictate how you're treated. If you want respect, you must command it.
I agree with Machiavelli’s tactics. Today in class, we discussed the loved leaders against the hated leaders. The nicer leaders were obviously better, yet that raises another issue. Machiavelli never promoted hate, just fear…so the “feared” leaders hold no purpose in this argument since they were hated and Machiavelli didn’t advocate that.
Machiavelli probably had more tactics similar to the Han dynasty of China in mind than anything else. The Han dynasty of China took the harsh Qin rules and punishments and “watered them down” so they weren’t so strict and unforgiving. Even though, the Han still had severe punishments for criminals. Yet, this period in China lasted for over 400 years and many modern day people still refer to themselves as “Han People.” This proves that if ALL of Machiavelli’s advice was followed, everyone would be better off. Also, as one person (I think it was Sophia) said that fear can lead to love, which is what happened here and what happens if the Machiavellian tactics are employed properly. The State/government would have the respect it desires by using these ideas and the citizens would flourish.
The hardest thing about Machiavelli’s ideas is keeping fear and hatred separate--which makes it harder to be feared by Machiavelli’s standards than to be loved. Also, let me point out how Machiavelli wasn’t an advocate for being dishonest or corrupt, and he only stressed his tactics to be used if they are necessary. In this respect, Machiavelli’s tactics are extremely effective as well. All around, Machiavelli’s philosophy, if used properly, are the best because they are effective and create love in their own way.
Machiavelli makes some good points on how to maintain an effective leadership. I think that if we take the leadership example to a larger scale, we could look at countries who were feared and loved. Could America function on just love alone? or does it need a military to back it up in its opinions? Maybe a combination would achieve the best results; Rachel said respect could arise from a mixture of both fear and respect.
It is better to be feared than loved. I think that because if you are a King, and you want people to respect you and follow your rules, than they should fear you. If they love you, then they would just start taking advantage of a rule or something and just slack off. Just because someone is "afraid" of someone, it doesn't necessarily mean that they hate them. You can also be "afraid" of someone and love them. For example, a child and their parents. A child is expected to follow their parents' rules, and not break them. If the child broke the rule, the parents would obviously punish their child. That doesn't mean they hate the child, or that the child hates it's parents. The same type of relation with a King or leader and his people.
Just a thought on class today. Continuing the discussion after school.
me: and keep you fires in your fireplace
jzhang91:lol
i cant keep my fire in the fireplace
me: lol
jzhang91: it burns too hot
itll burn the house down
I fully agree with Kavitha...
I feel that the relationship of the ruler and his subject is based on love, but with this love comes a certain fear. Though this love is lacking of EROS, it is a compassionate love that is shown through kindness, loyalty, understanding, and respect. A part of this respect is fear. In order to be respected, there should be an element of fear present. Respect is necessary for order and peace, which is the goal of the ruler. But just because the subject may fear their ruler, this does not mean that they do not love them at the same time.
I stand by what I said in class that it is better to be feared than loved because fear gains you respect, which can lead to love and trust.
Although it's true that many rulers who ruled through fear are looked upon negatively in history, I believe that they ruled also with hate, which led them on the path to "the Dark side" (lol sorry I couldn't resist, i LOVE Star Wars) where the only knew how to rule with hate and cruelty.
For a ruler that has just been elected, or a son of a King who has just passed, it is difficult to get respect at first because people are wary of the change of power, as people always are. By first ruling through fear, you gain the basic respect from your people that is necessary for any kind of leader to be even remotly successful. However, if the ruler or leader correctly applies Machiavelli's tactics and holds true to his word his people see that their leader is protecting them and has what's best for them in mind they will come to love him and will support him in all of his antics because they have some to trust his judgement.
I do agree that Machiavelli's tactics can go astray if used improperly. However, ALL political tactics can have bad affects or can go the wrong way if used improperly. If we limited ourselves to political tactics that had no "what if's" outcomes that are negative then no group or nation would ever be able to achieve anything.
My opinion is that it is better to be feared that loved at first to gain respect, but then it is the leaders responsibility to carry through with his promises and justly serve his people so that love and trust can come later.
The only way for someone to to be fully loyal to you is if they love you. A ruler that is feared will only have that absolute power if there is no other way out. People's loyalty to a man they love overpasses people's loyalty to a man they fear.
As we discussed in class, it appears as though that those who were loved were able to accomplish things greater than those who were feared (helping humanity rather than killing people). Although being loved seems to be the better choice, I believe it comes with some risk. Friendship and loyalty can easily be destroyed or faked by others. Therefore, if you are loved, you may accomplish great things, but you are running the risk of betrayal of the possibly corrupt "friends" you have, leading to your downfall.
also, every person who were feared all ended up doing basically the same thing. I believe that it is possible to be feared yet be able to strive, we just haven't seen it happen yet.
As to what Maria said, yes and no. Many loved leaders were also killed and betrayed. To have an effective rule, like Sofia said, fear needs to be the basis and then love comes about. On the topic of hatred, not everyone will love you, even if you are a "loving" leader. However, the haters will be more likely to attack you if they fear no consequence. Look at Castro versus Martin Luther King, Martin Luther King Jr. was shot and killed while no one dares to kill Castro and he remains in power.
I am not advocating Castro's cruelty in any way (as Machiavelli's "feared" ruler shouldn't be hated or corrupt) but his people's fear keep him in power. No one dares to kill him for fear of the repercussions.
And as to what nj said, we have seen it happen (I'm reiterating a bit): that was Han China that lasted for over 400 years and is considered by many to be the best dynasty in Chinese history. The Han had consequences and yet the area thrived at this time (the beginning of the Silk Road occured during this time).
We haven't seen it often though, because like Sofia said, Machiavelli's ideas have often been employed improperly or not at all. That's one reason this topic is hard to discuss, because there is little proof of areas that truly operated on Machiavelli's principles. This simply means we have little to analyze directly and must use "what ifs" or try and make others fit his ideas to justify our arguments.
I think that it is better to have a balance of both, kind of like a parent. You love your subjects and they love you, but when they get out of line, that's when you make them fear you. So that would be a balance of both. They would get that whenever they did something wrong, that they got in major trouble.
I personally think its better to be feared than loved. If you're a loved leader, your people are more likely to disobey you because they know that you will forgive them because they know you love them. If you rule in fear, people will be afraid of what would happen to them if they disobey you, so they are less likely to do it. (and by the way, i think you should set a maximum limit for the number of comments rachel is allowed to leave in an hour.)
I disagree with Machiavelli’s philosophy. I believe that ruling with love is more influential that it is to rule with fear. Fear causes one to follow and respect because if not they will suffer. In class we explained how we feared disappointing our parents. We fear because we love our parents so we don’t want to let them down. Ruling by love will give a ruler respect while fear will cause a ruler to eventually fall. Respect can be gained by charitable acts. When we fear our parents we don’t fear death. In the situation of a ruler his subjects would fear death if not obedient. His subjects would be more understanding and more obeying when they're shown compassion.
I agree with what Sofia's saying. Fear can turn into respect and respect comes from love. In my opinion, more things are accomplished when the ruler is feared. Like Zack said in class, he definately would've cleaned his room, had he been told by his dad, but maybe not if his mom had suggested it.
I think that it is better to be loved, but easier to be feared. Love is like trust...it takes a long time to build. Fear is like taking the easier route, but it does not produce loyalty...most likely it only produces hatred. SO...I don't exactly agree with what Machiavelli said, but I don't totally disagree either. I think that love is harder to obtain, but is loyal. Fear is a good way to be respected, but will most likely cause hatred over loyalty.
Somewhere in the Odyssey it is mentioned that because Odysseus ruled the people of Ithaca so fairly and lovingly, when he became missing or incapacitated, he would be forgotten (as demonstrated by Penelope's ridiculous number of suitors). The same character who made the above observation also made the contrast that those who ruled tyrannically would be remembered for their deeds, but likely not in a positive manner.
The best method is to use a careful balance of both love and fear, but such a balance requires supremely mad skillz that are found in very few people.
Before one can make any decisions, one must first speculate on what Machiavelli meant by "fear". Unfourtunately, Machiavelli does not provide his own definition, so it can be assumed that he referred to the most common definition of the time period. As of this time period, fear is recognized as a natural reaction to impending danger, but back in the 1500s words had some very different meanings. To make matters worse, Machiavelli was influenced by many classical texts, meaning his definition may come from a period spanning over one thousand years, and is likely a combination of principles from those time periods.
I believe that to understand Machiavelli, one must understand that he was a soldier, a leader, and he had a somewhat grim outlook on life. Generally rule by fear in a military situation involves strict discipline and harsh punishments. A good military leader instills discipline with respect though, like leading your troops in the frontline, instead of hiding behind your troops and giving orders. In this way military leaders justify harsh conditions with a "lead by example" policy.
I believe that this kind of fear, the kind that goes hand in hand with respect, is the proper basis for leading any group. So based on my speculations, I believe Machiavelli was correct in his statement.
I disagree with Machiavelli. I believe it would be better to be loved than feared. I agree with Morgan in that fear is the easier route, but i think it does not always have the best outcomes. Most of the leaders throughout history who used fear had bad results which often included death and destruction which is harmful to any society. On the other hand, the leaders that depended on the love of their followers had much better results. Leaders who use fear have followers because the people they rule are afraid of the consequences not because they actually want to follow the leader. This creates false loyalty while love creates a true loyalty which is better for the society in the end.
This question was actually not easy to answer but here is a taste of what I think.
I agree with Machiavelli to some extent.
When a ruler first steps unto his throne, he has a choice to make on whether or not he will rule his empire by fear or by love. Although both methods would allow him to rule for some time, fear is the better method because the ruler will be able to rule more effectively. However, when I think of fear I do not mean the ruler should kill people everyday to impose fear in their eyes. The kind of fear I think of is that the subjects should feel afraid to disappoint their ruler by not following his commands. It is like a parent-child relationship. Many parents value obedience and respect from their children. If a child breaks a rule, he or she may be afraid of seeing their parents' disappointment not whether they will be punished, although punishment can increase fear.
Another point is that a ruler should probably instill some love among its subjects. This is similar to what Sofia said in class. By making sure the subjects know how much the king loves them in emotion in the beginning, the ruler can impose strict rules that the subjects will fear to disobey because they will be afraid to lose the trust and kindness of their ruler.
Many people might think ruling with fear is a horrible idea. Overall, it is much more effective in the long run. Most rulers will want an empire that will last not one that will last for a few months because his subjects stopped loving him. Also, through love you will have half of the people who will return the love and follow the ruler and another half of people who will rebel because they do not love the ruler. A ruler cannot just make them love them. But using fear does allow a ruler to have all of the subjects follow him.
An example of a ruler that wrongly used fear to rule was Hitler. He killed millions of people specifically Jews to get rid of their race and impose fear among the other people to see how powerful he was and that they will have the same fate if they disobey. An example of a ruler who used love but did not have a long rule is Gandhi. I respect him very much, but it is true that there were many people who loved him and there are also many who did not. Those who did not were the ones who ended his short life.
A final point that I would like to make is that concerning our current global situations, both love and somewhat fear would have to be used in order to rule. There are people who agree and disagree over how the rulers are ruling in our world today. In order to attract all types of audiences, a ruler would have to use both fear and love so that a majority of the people will agree with the ruler's actions. However, we will all have to see how rulers will rule like in the future and whether or not Machiavelli's principle will still be supported then or not.
Machiavelli’s philosophy that to be feared is better to be loved is arguable. According to me, to be feared is an easy way to get things done they way you want. Usually a ruler who is feared is much more effective and a good leader. A ruler who is loved will get more support from the people but will spend a long time getting what he/she wants done. However, there are certain circumstances where one may be better than all the other. Here are a few guidelines for situations where you should either be loved or feared. 1) If you are trying to be the leader of a hegemonic nation, being loved would be more effective because this type of nation sets examples for others and although being feared gives more power, it is often seen as morally incorrect. 2) If you want to be the impetus for the refinement of a declining nation, it is better to be loved because the people will support you and admire you for trying to restoring the nation. 3) If you are ruling a country with loose moral values where the meaning of things such as eros love between only a husband and wife are lost (e.g. the United States), it is better to be feared. The reason for this is because in this type of nation, things need to be put back in order and a strict ruler is needed for that. Overall, I think being feared is better because you have more power over the people. Being loved is nice, but you won’t have as much respect.
I believe that when ruling a nation, fear is the better way to get responses, at least at first. You can not trust others to back you up in times of need if you are only in a loving relationship. People are more likely to support you out of fear than out of love. However, the two concepts go hand in hand. Every decisioin a person makes is driven by one or both of these factors. For example, people work for the fear of not being able to eat or provide shelter for their family, but they also work harder for the love of a nicer home and the extra expenditures that we enjoy. In different situations, fear can turn into love and love can turn into fear. For example, when commanding an army, you initially rule by fear to insure that your soldiers follow you, but after they realize you are fighting with them, they begin to love you. As for parenting, you always love your child, and thier love for you grows so strong that they begin to fear you. Not necessarily fear you, but the idea of disappointing their parents whom they love. This is a positve form of fear that derives from love. Both fear and love have the power to be effective ruling strategies. If a pure form of love is used, than that is the better way to go if your subjects share the same love for you. However, if a weak love is present, fear must be enstilled in teh subjects by their leaders to generate proper responses.
I initially thought that it is better to be feared, because rulers who are feared can get things done faster and appear to have more power. However, our class discussion concerning the difference between McDonald's and Thanksgiving dinner (an analogy for the differences between Hilter and Ghandi) changed my mind. While being feared can get a ruler quick results (as well as a quick death), rulers who are loved achieve more for their people, although it may take more time; they probably sleep better at night, too.
It was common for the ruler of a huge hegemony to rule as Machiavelli advises, but this harsh rule was an impetus for rebellion and monarch replacement. Although someone somewhere will always be unhappy with a leader's decision, rulers who are loved are less likely to have to put down an uprising and more likely to be able to successfully lead their country through rough times. For clarification, this love should more closely resemble Ancient Roman "Diligere" or "Observare" than Ancient Greek "Eros." Too many passionate, erotic affairs can get a ruler in trouble. As long as the people of a country feel admiration for their leader and are eager and willing to work for the benefit of their country, a leader who is loved should be able to thrive. Those who are hated should hire a few extra body guards.
Love it better. They say that "love makes the world go round," which might be the reason we fight so much. There are too many rulers who use fear to control. Besides, fear isn't necessary. Our country seems to get along ok, and our presidents are'nt really scary guys. Although, I can't say that I love any of them...
I don't believe that this is about clear cut love or hate. A certain amount of respect is needed to be able to have influence over someone. You cannot always gain respect by being benevolent and fair. A certain amount of fear is necessary to get people to listen to you. At the same time, being an evil dictator is not the way to influence people. As we said in class; Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini were all evil and the only thing they are known for is inflicting pain and suffering. FDR and MKL tended to the needs of the people and had a significant influence on them. So do I think that it is better to be loved or feared? Well, judging from the past I would say it is better to be loved as long as you know when to put your foot down and do what you need to do to get things done. Being loved will work, as long as people respect you, not walk all over you.
In respect to ruling a country, I think that Machiavelli was right in saying that fear is more effective than love. Ruling with love basically says to subjects that they would be given numerous chances out of sympathy. Giving someone so many chances proves that they don't care for following your orders and are merely using you because you love them.
I think fear is a critical ruling technique. Scare your subjects into thinking that they'll be punished if they step a toe out of line, and they'll not only fear your wrath but eventually will fear to disappoint you, therefore caring for their ruler. You could get used to most anything if you're forced to endure it. Although I don't like the strict rule my parents impose on me, I'll look back in the future and will be grateful that they cared enough for my well-being to try and prevent me from failure (or in Machiavelli's case, the deterioration of a country).
I do agree with Machiavelli, and that it is better to be feared than love. If you are King, it is better to be feared, because people would respect you more and not break rules. Some people tend to take advantage of love. If a realationship between a King and his people is love, then those people will take advantage and slack off and break rules.
You can love someone and also fear them. Like I said before, the relationship between a parent and a child. The child is not going to HATE its parent just because it was punished. We can use this same example to show how people take advantage of love. Children take advantage of their parents by using love, to get what they want.
Therefore, it is better to be feared than loved.
I love the example of a parent-child relationship mentioned by morgan and kavi.
A child has both love and fear for their parent. They fear them in the sense that they fear disappointing them or not pleasing them but they love them because they are cared for and can rely on their parents. This is different from ruling a country however. A parent establishes fear through the unconditional love the child has had since birth. With a ruler, it is necessary to do the opposite, establish love through fear. It would be difficult to achieve that because after the ruler gained the respect from the fear he would have to prove/show his people that he is a just leader and has what's best for his people in mind (like a parent has for a child). If the leader achieves this, his followers will see that he can be trusted, and out of that trust loyalty and eventualy love can be gained and the ruler will no longer need to rule through fear because he now has the trust, loyalty, love, and still some fear of his people.
It would be difficult to achieve but I do believe that applied correctly it could work.
I also agree with Maggie that neither tactics are perfect but by using them in conjunction you can be a successful leader or ruler.
I agree with Susmita, Morgan R., and Sofia.
Sofia said that love can come of respect, but respect is only gained with some fear. She also said in class (or it could've been someone else, I'm not sure) that fear is especially necessary at the beginning of the leader's rule because he/she doesn't know how his/her subjects percieve him. I agree with Susmita and Morgan R. that the relationship should be like that of a parent/child with both love and fear. However, I think that there shouldn't be too much love or else the subects will forget to fear you and act tout of line, taking advantage of you. So the parent/child relationship I advocate be used is one comparable to the Confucian ideal of parent-child interaction. Confucius believed that obedience, humility, and piety were essntial to keeping the Chinese hierarchy together, from the family level to the State level (and its worked). He also stresses virtue, which would be instilled with fear (if one acts out of line, he/she is punished). By punishing those who are immoral and commit crimes, the ruler can be certain that his society will be moral (or at least act "civilized"). This will ensure a virtuous socitety. Confucianism also addresses being loved, which as many others I agree with said, can only come about from fear in the case of a ruler.
As to those who mention Hiter and all the bad and "feared" rulers, Machiavelli advises against being hated, and those tyrants were. Therefore, those rulers fall under the category of those who didn't follow Machiavelli properly (if at all) and are not valid when addressing Machiavelli's principle. This is because we are discussing if Machiavellian tactics are employed PROPERLY. Also, people mention how the hated rulers were killed, yet many loved leaders were too because no one feared the repercussions.
And Sara, you know I'd just wait for the hour (and do something else in that time). :)
No, I disagree with Machiavelli completely. It's not better to be feared because you lose a lot of your influence and power. If people only support you because they are afraid of some harm, where is the true committment and loyalty that you think you have won? On the other hand, if you are loved by your supporters, they will stick with you because they appreciate and like whate you are doing for them. Take Hitler for example. He ruled Germany with an iron fist and what happened? The holocaust, massacre, and a 2nd world war. Whereas leaders like MLK, who were loved by their followers, accomplished feats that changed the world in a good way and gave rights to people who had none or very little. In summary, it may feel good to rule by fear, but only by being loved will you gain the unending and undying loyalty that is coveted by any leader. Lastly, Yoda kicks butt and could own Darth Vader in a fight any day.
Machiavelli's philosophy is both applicable and not applicable to rulers, however, it depends heavily on the situation. If all a ruler wants is to keep one's subjects in line and quell notions of rebellion, fear is an excellent tool to be utilized. This has been proven to be empirically true: Genghis Khan, Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, and even today with Kim Jong-il, Fidel Castro, and Robert Mugabe (Zimbabwe). However, societies based on fear fail to contribute anything positive to the world. What good has North Korea or Cuba done recently? Nada. What resulted from Hitler and Stalin's rules? Only the deaths of millions and some oppression here and there, but that can hardly be considered beneficial to society. The only positive benefit EVER to arise from a society dominated by fear would be the Pax Mongolica, which rapidly proliferated trade across the Asian mainland. However, even that resulted in the increased spread of epidemics, and Genghis Khan did commit ethnic cleansing on a few million people.
In contrast, look at what societies ruled by influential, loved leaders have accomplished: FDR pulled the U.S. out of the Great Depression, managed to bring the U.S. through WWII successfully, and established the New Deal, substantially impacting the U.S. economy forever. Even Bush was loved at a time. Six years ago, he had the support of literally everyone when he first went into the Middle East. Let's not forget our civil rights activists. MLK permanently altered the course of American history with his actions for civil rights. Gandhi benefited Indians (just a little bit). The list goes on and on.
MY FIRE BURNS SO HOT
COME NEAR ME AND YOU'LL GO UP IN BLAZES
It is better to be feared than loved. Machiavelli's principle is more effective, because love takes time to earn from your subjects, and the world changes rapidly. Fear is quick and attainable thus allowing a leader to control his people. If a feared leader kills or drastically punishes people for breaking his laws, then less people will commit crimes and fewer people will be hurt due to the lack of violent acts.
Love is a great concept, but few leaders have achieved this rating. Love also takes years to earn usually; Franklin Roosevelt had to earn his respect from the American citizens and only after one or two terms, did the American people love him.
Many things can happen in eight years also. A large war like World War II was fought in less than eight years and inventions like computers or telephones can drastically improve in eight years and change the world. The world gets smaller and wars can come and go rapidly, and if a leader is still trying to receive respect from his people, then he will not have control of his nation in a time of crisis or his country will fall behind from others in military, technology, and/or power.
No, it isn't better to be feared than loved. I believe that being loved has greater power than being feared. Fight of all, if you are feared, then you have a greater chance of having enemies. People are more likely to retaliate. Second, most people do not like the feeling of constant fear. Eventually people will overcome that fear, and that happens, then the ruler will lose power. Another thing about fear is that people don't trust a leader that they fear. If the people love a ruler, then there is trust.
IMO, Hitler was evil and caused a lot of havoc during WWII. He was feared by many, and most feared because of the holocaust. However, before most of this, he was loved. In Germany, most of the population were Nazi, and they supported Hitler. I actually think he brainwashed them (lol), but more importantly, he had supporters by using love. Then somehow- (maybe b.c he was killing a lot ppl) they stopped loving him, and started to fear him. Anyone that was against him were most likely going to die. In the beginning love gave Hitler power, and in the end he was feared...eventually fear led to suicide. It was good while he was loved, but when he became feared...he lost.
I think love > fear. If i was being ruled, i'd rather love the ruler than fear him.
I believe it is better to be feared than to be loved, so long as you are hated. Fear is a natural driving force that can easily be attained. A ruler can easily make his followers fear him, and the fear drives them to do as he commands or else they will pay the price. That fear drives the people and keeps them in line. Love on the other hand requires lots of effort to acquire, and people can easily take advantage of someone that is loved. Fear is easily attained and is effective so long as the leader is not hated. Hatred drives people to desire to revolt against the cruel leader and overthrow him. For example, Genghis Khan created the largest land empire in all of history, and he was feared by everyone, except maybe his fellow Mongols. His fear would have been able to the conquer the whole known world if not for the inhibition of his death. His descendants did not use the same fear as him, and that led to the fall of the great empire and the failure to conquer all of the known world. Fear is stronger and easier to attain then love, so long as the leader is not hated.
i think it is better to be loved than feared because your subjuects would be more layal to you and more willing to serve you if they loved you. they would also give you more respect than if you were feared. on the other hand, if you are feared, you would have more enemies and people would hate you. you would have a better chance of failing and being betrayed or even killed if you were feared.
if we look at some examples of people in the past, we can see how leaders who were loved in their society and whoe contributed to their people were more successful than leaders who were feared. their contributions to society had a long-term effect such as MLK's civil rights movement or FDR's solution for the Great Depression. leaders who were feared conquered lands and had power for a while and then fell or were attacked, such as Genghis Khan or Adolf Hitler.
Before one can truly decide whether Fear or Love is the better choice, one must first consult their own soul. Fear may be easier and create results quickly, but is it worth the price on your soul? Of course, this only applies if you view Machiavelli's fear as a terrible thing, where it was most likely refering to the respectful sense of duty of a soldier to a superior.
i would rule with fear rather than love. putting fear into people would make them respect and look up to you, while putting love into people could make them take advantage of you. I would rule with fear to an extent where people would respect and listen to me, not be scared and hateful of me.
Post a Comment