More handpicked essays just for you.
Advantages and disadvantages of fear
Advantages and disadvantages of fear
Advantages and disadvantages of fear
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Advantages and disadvantages of fear
As a ruler, generating fear amongst followers is better than having subjects that follow a ruler because of love. This is true because fear induces loyalty from people, and it also prevents followers from breaking the law. Fear does a better job of producing this kind of effect than love. Making subjects fear a ruler is the only way to maintain a steady group of followers. The great Niccolo Machiavelli once wrote in his legendary book The Prince, “fear preserved you by a dread of punishment … never fails” (Machiavelli). Machiavelli says that showing that consequences will be harsh will always prevent subjects from betraying a ruler. Not only this, subjects that fear their ruler will break laws less often. Again, if they fear the punishment,
rulers will almost always have ultimate power over his subjects. In The Prince, Machiavelli tells that fear is more powerful than being loved. His writing shows that a good ruler should induce fear, but maintain a state without hatred from subjects: “he [a ruler] can endure very well being feared whilst he is not hated, which will always be” (Machiavelli). Therefore, a ruler who is feared will undoubtedly prevail over one who works to achieve the love of and from his or her subjects.
Machiavelli’s, “The Prince” is the ideal book for individuals intending to both govern and maintain a strong nation. Filled with practical advice, he includes numerous religious references to support his claims. He devotes a chapter within the book to speak about the ancient founders of states. In the chapter called, “On new principalities that are acquired by one’s own arms and by virtue”, Machiavelli discussed the importance of a prince to have their own talent in governing a nation, rather than having relied on fortune to rule. The latter is a risk no leader should take and he cited past leaders as a guide for both the current and future princes.
The book “The Prince” was made by Nicolo Machiavelli and is still followed by politicians to this day. Nicolo Machiavelli was an Italian politician, writer, historian, philosopher and humanist in the 16th century. He wrote a book describing many aspects on how he believed the “Perfect Prince” should act like. The book was first written in 1513, but it was not published until 1532 and it was dedicated to Lorenzo di Piero de’ Medici. Many people say that Machiavelli would (in some aspect) consider Adolf Hitler a true prince. Adolf Hitler was born on April 20th, 1889 in Braunau am Inn, Austria-Hungary. When he first came to Germany he joined WW1 and that is when his love for war developed. After WW1 Hitler entered politics, and since Germany was
of participating in a conspiracy to restore the republic, because of this he was sent to jail for three weeks, and tortured. He fled the city of Florence, and decided to settle down in a calm quiet town called Sant’Andrea. He also decided to continue his dream and career as a writer. In 1513 he started to write his Discourses, this book focused on states controlled by the prince and the citizens. It was not finished until 1521, because he interrupted his work on Discourses to write the very famous The Prince.
After five hundred years, Niccolo Machiavelli the man has ceased to exist. In his place is merely an entity, one that is human, but also something that is far above one. The debate over his political ideologies and theories has elevated him to a mythical status summed up in one word: Machiavelli. His family name has evolved into an adjective in the English language in its various forms. Writers and pundit’s bandy about this new adjective in such ways as, “He is a Machiavelli,” “They are Machiavelli’s,” “This is suitable for a Machiavelli.” These phrases are almost always the words of a person that understands more about Niccolo’s reputation than the man himself. Forgotten is that Machiavelli is not an adequate example of the ruler he is credited with describing; a more accurate statement would be to call someone a “Borgia” or a “Valentino.” Most of the time they are grossly mistaken in their references. All these words accomplish is to add to the legend, and the misinterpretation, of the true nature of Niccolo Machiavelli.
In the television series, House of Cards, a position in Congress is the basis of the show and the main character, Frank Underwood, thrives for his goals of personal achievement and working his devious plans into a profit for himself and ultimately achieving anything he wants no matter what it takes. Frank Underwood is an extremely intelligent congressman, who lives in Washington D.C. representing his home state of South Carolina, but has always put his self first. At the introduction of the show he states, “I see two different types of pain, useful pain, that helps you grow, and useless pain that does nothing but cause suffering”. These sorts of pain, but more importantly the meanings, explain a specific part of his distinctive morals that carry his actions along and show how he works with certain people or conflicts. His eminent colleagues of the U.S. legislative branch, specifically congress, perception of Frank is that he does whatever he can to make the government stronger while his intellectual perception is the contrary. While his colleagues trust him, it is hard for Frank Underwood to show a virtuous personality, enough to have full faith and trust especially regarding a huge decision he makes to murder a member of the Legislative branch. This internal situation, mirrors the philosophy (shown in the book, “The Prince”) of the political Philosopher, Niccolo Machiavelli, who has provided many with the conflicting opinion of modern times political contemplation. The scene in the last few minutes of “House of Cards: Chapter 11” exemplifies Frank’s means for consequentialism by, the fact of achieving his ultimate maxim or intended end. There is no skepticism that Frank’s actions do not follow solitarily consequentialism but ther...
Team C believes that Machiavelli’s principal idea is demonstrated in politics, “the ends justify the means”. If a leader is vicious and effective it is better than being virtuous and ineffective. Machiavelli, however did not endorse vicious behavior in general, just whatever would not “allow disorders to arise”. To remain in power, a leader must avoid the hatred of his people. It is not necessary for a leader to be loved; in fact, it is often better for him to be feared. The author states, “It is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be lacking” (p. 103). Machiavelli warns leaders against doing things that might result in hatred, such as the confiscation of property. Being hated, however, can result the downfall of a prince.
If one were to choose to be either feared or loved, their best bet would be to instill fear in their constituents. A loved, weak leader may be usurped by those with less pure intentions. However, one that is feared will have a much greater, lasting effect on its people and/or followers, scaring them into order. With...
Machiavelli in his famous book “The Prince” describes the necessary characteristics for a strong and successful leader. He believes that one of the most important characteristics is to rule in favor of his government and to hold power in his hands. Power is an essential aspect of Machiavelli’s theory, and a leader should do whatever it takes to keep it for the safety of his country because “the ends justifies the means.” To attain and preserve the power, a leader should rather be feared than loved by his people, but it is vital not to be hated. As he states, “anyone compelled to choose will find far greater security in being feared than in being loved.” If a leader is feared, the people are less likely to revolt, and in the end, only a threat of punishment can guarantee obedienc...
Machiavelli illustrates several key points in what it takes to be a "successful" Prince. In chapters 5-10, Machiavelli is giving us a true image of the coldhearted reputation he has carried throughout the years. He explains his ideas on taking over a "free" state or republic and how to conquer and rule with the peoples loyalty and respect.
A leader who is feared does not have a sincere relationship with people unlike love enables a mutual relationship between the people and their leader. When you are feared, people will avoid any negative consequences. Nevertheless, when you are loved, people will adore your loyalty
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.
In the sixteenth century, there were three sets of socioeconomic statuses that one could acquire or be a part of, the clergy, the nobility, and the peasantry. The divide between these three generalized classes was far more complicated in reality that it seems, as socioeconomic classes consist of multiple branches. Nonetheless, it all essentially came down to two undeniable factions, the oppressors and the oppressed. Niccolo Machiavelli, being a mixture of the two due to his living situation while writing the book, gained a middle-ground which allowed him to achieve omnipotent intelligence that so many rulers normally lack, first hand experience of what it like to live both lives, one as a peasant and the other as a nobleman. This omnipotent
The Prince by Niccolò Machiavelli isn't about one man's ways to feed his power hungry mindset through gluttony, nor is it just explaining altercations between a nation's states. This writing is regarding to how one's self-confidence can make them become powerful in a society and also, the way morals and politics differ and can be separate in a government. Originally, Machiavelli wrote The Prince to gain support from Lorenzo de' Medici, who during the era, was governor of Florence. As meant as writing for how a society should be run, this book has been read by many peoples around the world who want to have better knowledge of the perfect stability of beliefs and politics required to run a good civilization.
Machiavelli is “a crystal-clear realist who understands the limits and uses of power.” -- Pulitzer Prize–winning author Jared Diamond (2013)
While “every sensible prince wishes to be considered, merciful and not cruel”(pg. 35), one should learn to be merciful in moderation. Not doing so can lead to unintended effects where if you are too “good” it can lead to being taken advantage of, or to “uprisings and civil war” because then you will be looked at as a pushover by your citizens and other neighboring countries. Therefore if you were to be cruel, people will fear you enough to, in theory, not go against you and stay united. But I think this concept seems more like a dictatorship, which thrives on citizens fear, and I don’t think it should be instilled in our government considering that most dictatorships end poorly and lead to more uprisings and civil war than with a merciful leader. And this is why the question in this section on whether it is better to be feared or loved also comes up. Machiavelli believes that a prince should find a balance of being both feared and loved and in general just try to escape hatred. If you are loved by your people, rarely will they betray you, but it is also good to be feared by other nations so that you are not looked upon as a target. So in this section of the prince I think the concept of ruling only on fear should not be used, however I do think that a leader should try balance being loved and