Analysis Of Machiavelli's The Prince
In Machiavelli’s work called The Prince he brings up several life style choices that are very controversial even to this day. In his chapter 17, he labeled “Cruelty and Mercy: Is It Better to be Feared or the Reverse?” brings up a major controversial issue among modern leaders. Several leaders come to mind when thinking of using love to govern and using fear to govern. Some leaders use it in a good way and others not so much. But which is better? Did Machiavellie have a preference? In his work, he mentions, “I say that every sensible prince wishes to be considered merciful and not cruel.” (ch.17 p1) So it seems as though Machiavelli did have a preference but did it always work out in life is the question. Do loved leaders govern better than
…show more content…
Later in his rain, Hitler forced Jews to new places where it was unsafe, unsanitary and inhumane. Just like Machiavelli says, “ My hard condition and newness of my sovereignty force me to do such things, and to set guards over by boundaries far and wide.”(ch.17 p1) This shows that when the leader feels like he has no choice in order to be cruel, then the country has no choice but to listen or else something horrific will become of them. This leads into my point that being loved by your people is being more effective than being feared. In one aspect, both fear and love can make people do crazy things but one they are doing out of willingness and the other by force. To love the person you are listening to will make it more likely to agree with that person and follow that person. To fear the person you are listening to, is to do it out of hopes that you will be spared. The other point to fear is that it will not last as not as love does. Eventually someone will not be afraid to stand up to the leader and that is when that leader will start to fall. A loved leader will never fall. They will stay in government as long as he or she would want to because their people would want them to stay. Fear and love are two completely different styles of government and they do not mix together either. You cannot be loved and feared. One cannot be happy being forced to do something they don’t
Later in his rain, Hitler forced Jews to new places where it was unsafe, unsanitary and inhumane. Just like Machiavelli says, “ My hard condition and newness of my sovereignty force me to do such things, and to set guards over by boundaries far and wide.”(ch.17 p1) This shows that when the leader feels like he has no choice in order to be cruel, then the country has no choice but to listen or else something horrific will become of them. This leads into my point that being loved by your people is being more effective than being feared. In one aspect, both fear and love can make people do crazy things but one they are doing out of willingness and the other by force. To love the person you are listening to will make it more likely to agree with that person and follow that person. To fear the person you are listening to, is to do it out of hopes that you will be spared. The other point to fear is that it will not last as not as love does. Eventually someone will not be afraid to stand up to the leader and that is when that leader will start to fall. A loved leader will never fall. They will stay in government as long as he or she would want to because their people would want them to stay. Fear and love are two completely different styles of government and they do not mix together either. You cannot be loved and feared. One cannot be happy being forced to do something they don’t