TRHS AP Euro

Monday, August 28, 2006

Machiavelli's The Prince

This is chapter 17 of Machiavelli's The Prince. In this chapter, Machiavelli asks the famous question, "Is it better to be loved or feared?". Answer the usual 5 questions. Also give your own personal opinion about whether it's better to be loved or feared. Use examples from the text to support your response.

Due: MIDNIGHT Monday, August 28

posted by RJS at 7:02 AM

7 Comments:

  • The theme of the reading is when one is in the position where one must lead vast mulitudes of people, the decision between love and fear must be eventually made; to drift into just another shade of gray is to comdemn yourself to oblivion. Machiavelli wrote this as someone who had studied the sucessful/unsucessful rulers of the past and carefully examined what made them so. Unlike the previous Renaissance work we read, Machiavelli does not ask for any kind of balance other than not letting fear become hatred. Love is such a complex and intricate emotion that one can hardly expect to feel it for more than a handful of persons through one's life time, so to ask this of a whole country seems vastly unreasonable. Loyalty, however, is far more plausible. Where loyalty asks and pleads, fear demands. Fear is far more easily ignited and controlled, and tends to spawn awe and respect. Therefore, I think it is better for a ruler to be feared rather than loved. But really, would you follow a ruler that though slightly cruel could strike a sense of respect and presence into even enemies or one that was just so darn cute and lovable?

    By Blogger laura, at Monday, August 28, 2006 3:47:00 PM  

  • Obviously the point of view belongs to Machiavelli, considering he wrote it. He explains the difference between loved rulers and feared rulers, and justifies the grounds on which some rulers prefer to be feared. He makes an excellent point when he says, basically, that there is always something better than what you have to offer, which would lead men to betrayal, but men will remain faithful out of fear and dread of punishment. The point is, you can't please everyone, as you can't make everyone fear you if they fear nothing else, but you can make more fear you (in a respectful way) than love you. Both clemency and fear should not be taken light hearted. Both are vital to a ruler's strategy, but both can be misused terribly. If too merciful, then a ruler can be taken advantage of or overthrown easily. If too brutal and inhuman, even the most loyal of confidants can turn.

    By Blogger TeganLove, at Monday, August 28, 2006 6:05:00 PM  

  • This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    By Blogger TeganLove, at Monday, August 28, 2006 6:05:00 PM  

  • The these of this chapter is that to be a repected ruler it is better to be feared than loved, as long as you are not hated either. Machiavelli wrote this from his own point of view since it is tell his direct opinions in order to present an argument that was 'pro-fear' in rulers. This gave people the opportunity to see another perspective on the question of fear or love. This is a lot like the last reading we had in that it was describing how to be good at what one does. However, it is not rules but an opinion. From reading I learned, or more realized I suppose, that most of the great rulers that one hears about today were not known for their extreme kindness but strength and control, and control usually comes through fear as Machiavelli presented in this reading. Gabriael said that it depends on the circumstances which I agree with, but in this reading the circumstances are presented, and it says that since the ruler cannot bond with each individual fear would be the best choice.

    By Blogger manxomefoe, at Monday, August 28, 2006 8:29:00 PM  

  • Here Machiavelli gives a rather harsh view on what he interprets as the realities of the world. I've often heard the Prince described as a piece on government- from here it seems to be more a piece on human pyschology. On the whole, Machiavelli encourages rulers to inspire fear whilst avoiding hatred among their subjects. Although he alights briefly on the value of love directed toward a ruler, he dismisses it as less able to govern the corrupt human nature than a fear of reprisal.
    Machiavelli wrote this among the backdrop of Italian politics- among the backstabbing, the alliances, the foreign invasions, the revolts and revolutions. Machiavelli writes from the view of an outsider who has collected data from all sources (Greek, Roman, leading to present day)and analyzed the best strategy. From what I read in this chapter, I can detect no hint of irony or satire, no hint of anything except to urge strategy and reason upon rulers. In essence, Machiavelli tells rulers how to dominate.
    I find a rather interesting point in that this is the second "how to" reading we have done. First we had how to live a proper noble life, now we have how to rule. I breathlessly await what comes next- a how to on Rennaisance art, perhaps?
    Here I have learned the coldness which apparently accompanies many men of absolute logic. I felt a chill when I read Machiavelli discussing lives and property not on a standpoint of value but on how much value the public places on them.
    Having read my classmates responses so far I am shocked at the general acceptance (with the possible exception of Victoria, who did at least mention respect as a possible alternative) to Machiavelli's teachings. Before I go on, please understand that I am not attacking you or your views on a personal level. I am presenting my case.
    First to people who said that love was unreliable- "complex, intricate." We are not speaking of infatuation, lust, mild interest, liking, tenderness, amusement. We are speaking of LOVE- the love that makes me willing to die for my friends, my religion, my values. No, an effective ruler is not "cute and lovable." Again, love is not cute. Love is a very serious matter.
    Now, let's get another point across. Love is not an emotion- or if it is one, it is unlike any other. Love has nothing to do with feeling. A man prommises to love his wife forever- that does not mean he must always cherish tender thoughts about her. Love is a state of mind, a guideline for life.
    Machiavelli himself acknowledges that love and fear combined would probably serve the best purpose for a ruler. (Indeed, can we think of no Supreme Being, Ultimate Fact that inspires both with mere thought?) But he dismisses love as too difficult to obtain and retain. He chooses fear when "either must be dispensed with." If either is let go then real leadership is also let go. Machiavelli asserts that fear is safer than love- since when has life been about safety. Since when has any real grasp at leadership, morality, action been based on playing it safe?
    Machiavelli calls love inconsistent. What of fear? If men go forth into battle only because they fear the reprisal of their general, what will happen upon the meeting of a foe whom they fear more. In a contest between these two fears, the stronger will win. But a soldier he goes forward because of the love he has for his officer, his goal, his country and his God will face an obstacle (perhaps hesitating, perhaps terrified) but backed with more than emotion-backed with a mindset, backed with love.
    So love is unrealistic. So love is difficult. Well then one's leadership had better be based on an undying attempt to obtain that love. A ruler should act out of concern, not out of emotion, compassion, not out of fear of reprisal. In fact, he should act out of love. In doing so, he will inspire it. And a people living in love of their king and country will be much better off than a people living in fear.

    By Blogger ThomasBatson, at Monday, August 28, 2006 8:46:00 PM  

  • "The death of one is a tragedy but the death of millions is a statistic" is actually the reverse of the views of Machiavelli's "The Prince", which clearly places the common good above individual pain. The theme of his book is to be a guide regarding power and being an effective leader in war and in peace, and this particular excerpt details the finer points of one's image, which is essential to either gaining or loosing public support. Yes, the question "Is it better to be feared or loved" may seem cold and calculating, but Machiavelli explores it on every level, and in the end, the answer is a rational one: If promises are made, then promises are broken one way or another, without regard to need or circumstance. Promises broken are an easy way to spark opposition. So if one were to start out without promises and hopes, and were to be feared rather than loved, they may stand more of a chance of being loved later on, which is important. It's like winning the public's hearts with your deeds instead of words. It's a symbol of honesty. Machiavelli's position as an advisor to the Medici family gave him a unique insight to the inner workings of government, and certainly gave him time to contemplate his all-encompassing method. This is definitely a book without lies or remorse, not that our previous reading was full of lies, but social standards are a bit more superficial than the complex and, for part of the time contradicting, ideals that Machiavelli exposes on a moral level, a level which Castiglione seems to conceal in his writings.

    By Blogger Victoria, at Monday, August 28, 2006 10:19:00 PM  

  • This excerpt's theme is the instruction of the reader on how to control a state, specifically on whether to be feared or loved to achieve safe control. Machiavelli wrote it to basically chronicle all of his former advice to the Medici, with a strong pro-Italy bias, though this never actually would affect any of his teachings, besides the last chapter of his book, which wasn't in the excerpt. This doesn't especially link well with the other document, though they are both instuctive books from the Renaissance period, just one was on social matters and the other politico-military. To begin with, I read this book last year, and I did (and still do) completely agree with Machiavelli on everything. What he's saying is that it is beneficial for a ruler to be loved and/or feared, either or both, but being feared is much easier and a little bit safer. The reason is that the people with the power to overthrow such a government at this time (and more or less now) are the nobles, the military, and the clergy. There have been popular revolts before with poor people overthrowing a government, but this was only in the interest of one of the other powerful groups. The military is comprised of a group of people that likely used to be poor, but have left that to obtain special benefits from their leader and escape being poor, and if the leader is a loved leader, giving to the poor, then the military is missing out on their benefits. The nobles would be against a loved ruler as well, for all that giving has to be financially balanced out, the step that makes sense being to tax the nobles. It also takes away from money the clergy could be making, and gives their masses the ability to learn and become middle class, therefore not quite as blindly loyal as a whole to the church. However, a feared ruler, as long as not hated, takes from the poor like most rulers do, so its not anything especially worthy of revolt, and therefore makes all three parties of power happy, giving them the excess money instead. Machiavelli also mentions Hannibal, the Carthaginian general who successfully invaded Roman Italy, destroying the entire Roman military several times. He was certainly a feared man, but no one hated him in his rule, especially not the people who had power to depose him. However, Hannibal eventually failed to conquer Rome due to a small stubborness to listen to advice, the advice being to actually besiege Rome when the chance presented itself. To wrap up, people will always act as makes sense by reason, and those not in power will never try to triumph with morals, for they're not in power, therefore they will be considered more moral no matter what due to their situation. This acts as a natural leveling-ground, assuming the ruler does not reduce the general populace to a point where they don't have the power to revolt. This point is true in war as well, for instance, in Iraq we were obviously the victors when the war was fought conventionally, between national armies. However, we cannot lower ourselves to taking away from the power of the populace, despite the vast good it would do for Iraq in the future, when the people could slowly be given power. Instead, we try to be loved (though that's very futile), and do not give the general populace fear of reprisal when they revolt, for we can't just kill huge amounts of the population whenever a major terrorist attack happens, giving a simple cause and effect to any potential terrorists, making the people hate the terrorists instead for they are indirectly responsible for the people's death (though unfortunately, there's little other way out, other than just leaving the country, leading to more death among Iraqis in civil war). The only ways out are through destructive tactics, for these people are not at all coerced by love. I agree with Machiavelli.

    By Blogger Unknown, at Monday, August 28, 2006 10:57:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home