Student Question
In The Prince, does Machiavelli argue a ruler should be loved or feared?
Quick answer:
Machiavelli argues that a ruler should be feared rather than loved if both cannot be achieved. He believes fear is a more reliable way to maintain control because it does not depend on the fickle and insincere nature of human affection. While fear ensures obedience, Machiavelli cautions against being hated, suggesting rulers should avoid actions like seizing property, which could provoke hatred. Ultimately, fear is within a ruler's control, unlike love, which depends on the subjects.
The answer to this question can be found in Chapter XVII of The Prince. Here Machiavelli observes that, given a choice, rulers would obviously want to be loved and feared. But if this is impossible, he argues, and if a ruler had to choose between one or the other, it is better to be feared than loved. The reason for this lies in Machiavelli's cynical view of human nature:
For of men it may generally be affirmed that they are thankless, fickle, false, studious to avoid danger, greedy of gain, devoted to you while you are able to confer benefits upon them, and ready, as I said before, while danger is distant, to shed their blood, and sacrifice their property, their lives, and their children for you; but in the hour of need they turn against you.
In other words, the love of the people is not terribly reliable,...
Unlock This Answer Now
Start your 48-hour free trial and get ahead in class. Boost your grades with access to expert answers and top-tier study guides. Thousands of students are already mastering their assignments—don't miss out. Cancel anytime.
Already a member? Log in here.
and is rarely sincere. Professions of love made to a ruler's face are "broken on every whisper of private interest," while fear is unconditional and sincere. Machiavelli goes on to stipulate that while it is important to be feared, a ruler does not want to be hated. In particular, while he sometimes might have to be cruel, he should abstain from taking the property of his people, which is an unforgiveable offense. Ultimately, Machiavelli concludes, one can be feared through one's own actions. Whether or not one is loved depends on his subjects. A ruler should always try to control only those things he can, though he ought to always be on guard against being hated.
What is Machiavelli's argument on whether a ruler should be loved or feared?
Machiavelli definitely believed that it was better to be feared than to be loved. He said that it was best of all to be both feared and loved, but that the two rarely go together.
The major reason, according to him, that fear is better is that love is too likely to be faked. He says that people are naturally a bunch of liars and will only pretend to love you while you are strong. Then when you are weak they will destroy you.
So, it's better to rule by fear because that doesn't rely on your subjects. It is maintained by punishment, which is something that "you" the prince, will always be able to do (as long as you are in power).
What is Machiavelli's argument on whether a ruler should be loved or feared?
Niccolo Machiavelli wrote The Prince to present his philosophy of conduct for the ruler of any land. The short summary of that philosophy would be that the ruler should do whatever is necessary to consolidate and maintain all power under his direct control.
Machiavelli did not concern himself with how the ruler might win the affection or loyalty of his subjects.
It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both....It is much more secure to be feared than to be loved....Since it is difficult to join them together, it is safer to be feared than to be loved when one of the two must be lacking.
Machiavelli did not consider that the political activities of running a country had to be intertwined with the morals of human behavior. He considered it essential that a ruler be prepared to take whatever steps were required to preserve his political power from potential threats. If this effort required use of deceit or tactics that caused fear, the effort was merited when it helped to solidify the control of the ruler over his subjects.