"It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both." Is one of the most cited quotes from 16th-century political philosopher Niccolo Machiavelli's (in)famous book The Prince. What do you think about this quote? Is it more important for authority figures and leaders to be feared or loved?
I can definitely agree with Machiavelli. All societies are based on the citizens fear of law and authority, without it we wouldn't see much order.
I think the key is that the other part of the quote is that it's better to be both, it's just that he thinks that is very difficult given when and where he lived. I don't think all societies are based on fear of the law. I think the more civil a society is, the more it is based on respect of the law. Respect of the law combines the best of both love and fear, and maybe just as importantly, is about compliance with the institutions and not personal loyalty to the people who run them. I think the most orderly societies are the ones where leaders are neither dependent on love or fear, but get compliance because they are seen as legitimate heads of a government that is itself respected.
I think the key is that the other part of the quote is that it's better to be both, it's just that he thinks that is very difficult given when and where he lived. I don't think all societies are based on fear of the law. I think the more civil a society is, the more it is based on respect of the law. Respect of the law combines the best of both love and fear, and maybe just as importantly, is about compliance with the institutions and not personal loyalty to the people who run them. I think the most orderly societies are the ones where leaders are neither dependent on love or fear, but get compliance because they are seen as legitimate heads of a government that is itself respected.
Yep, well put.
"It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both."
The correct response to this quote is this:
Better for whom?
Machiavelli was an amoral high-functioning sociopath, consumed with his desire to gain and keep political power at any cost, up to and including razing entire cities. What was unusual about him was his willingness to write about and discuss his methods and reasoning. It is also quite certain that his subjects, and others who suffered under similar rulers, probably disagreed pretty strongly with what was "better" for them.
All societies are based on the citizens fear of law and authority, without it we wouldn't see much order.
I could not disagree with this more. While our modern societies certainly have many broad and deep issues, what progress we've made has been accomplished by moving away from Machiavelli's heartless and vicious worldview. There is far more peace, order, and happiness in Europe today than there ever was during his time. Conversely, the yoke of government and the ability of rulers to follow Machiavelli's more bloodthirsty recommendations has been sharply curtailed.
A lot of people also consider The Prince to be satire:
I think that being feared vs. loved says basically nothing about how effective a leader someone is. Both tend to inspire people to listen to you, but that's it.
I think the key is that the other part of the quote is that it's better to be both, it's just that he thinks that is very difficult given when and where he lived. I don't think all societies are based on fear of the law. I think the more civil a society is, the more it is based on respect of the law. Respect of the law combines the best of both love and fear, and maybe just as importantly, is about compliance with the institutions and not personal loyalty to the people who run them. I think the most orderly societies are the ones where leaders are neither dependent on love or fear, but get compliance because they are seen as legitimate heads of a government that is itself respected.
Of course, I enver denied that both are needed, they very much are. But I think fear is the most crucial aspect. Take a look at any government in the world. The cornerstone for their rule is that the citizens fear the law. If the people wouldn't fear the government, then it is doing something wrong and would indeed be quite useless. Being feared means that you assert dominance over others, and this is not only limited to your own citizens. It is a great tool in foreign policy and when dealing with other political authirities too.
Integrity wrote:"It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both."
The correct response to this quote is this:
Better for whom?
Machiavelli was an amoral high-functioning sociopath, consumed with his desire to gain and keep political power at any cost, up to and including razing entire cities. What was unusual about him was his willingness to write about and discuss his methods and reasoning. It is also quite certain that his subjects, and others who suffered under similar rulers, probably disagreed pretty strongly with what was "better" for them.
No, he was simply an unrelenting pragmatist. The truth simply is that politics can be nasty.
It is important to remeber the context in which [the book was written. Italy was politically decentralized and in turmoil. The Prince was meant to be a gidebook to solve the problems of a vunerable Italy and for Machiavelli to regain the trust of the Mercedi royal family. It was an accurate reflection of the status quo in italy.
I could not disagree with this more. While our modern societies certainly have many broad and deep issues, what progress we've made has been accomplished by moving away from Machiavelli's heartless and vicious worldview. There is far more peace, order, and happiness in Europe today than there ever was during his time. Conversely, the yoke of government and the ability of rulers to follow Machiavelli's more bloodthirsty recommendations has been sharply curtailed.
Quite the contrary, many of the ideas presented in the book are still widely used by governments and businesses worldwide.
A lot of people also consider The Prince to be satire:
See above.
Yes, there is some controversy among historians about this, but the general consensus is that it was not satire but was rather written as a legit guidebook for rulers.
cheeze_pavilion wrote:I think the key is that the other part of the quote is that it's better to be both, it's just that he thinks that is very difficult given when and where he lived. I don't think all societies are based on fear of the law. I think the more civil a society is, the more it is based on respect of the law. Respect of the law combines the best of both love and fear, and maybe just as importantly, is about compliance with the institutions and not personal loyalty to the people who run them. I think the most orderly societies are the ones where leaders are neither dependent on love or fear, but get compliance because they are seen as legitimate heads of a government that is itself respected.
Of course, I never denied that both are needed, they very much are. But I think fear is the most crucial aspect. Take a look at any government in the world. The cornerstone for their rule is that the citizens fear the law. If the people wouldn't fear the government, then it is doing something wrong and would indeed be quite useless. Being feared means that you assert dominance over others, and this is not only limited to your own citizens. It is a great tool in foreign policy and when dealing with other political authorities too.
I'm saying there's the third option--respect. It's not fear. It's more that that. It's when the society sees compliance with the law as a cultural value. That can be a cornerstone for rule, too. The fear of punishment by the government is part of respect (as in some sense love is part of respect too), but it's not the whole of it. It's not extrinsic motivation in the sense that people are going around making risk vs. reward calculations. It's an internal motivation where people simply don't want to break the laws in the first place.
Integrity wrote:cheeze_pavilion wrote:I think the key is that the other part of the quote is that it's better to be both, it's just that he thinks that is very difficult given when and where he lived. I don't think all societies are based on fear of the law. I think the more civil a society is, the more it is based on respect of the law. Respect of the law combines the best of both love and fear, and maybe just as importantly, is about compliance with the institutions and not personal loyalty to the people who run them. I think the most orderly societies are the ones where leaders are neither dependent on love or fear, but get compliance because they are seen as legitimate heads of a government that is itself respected.
Of course, I never denied that both are needed, they very much are. But I think fear is the most crucial aspect. Take a look at any government in the world. The cornerstone for their rule is that the citizens fear the law. If the people wouldn't fear the government, then it is doing something wrong and would indeed be quite useless. Being feared means that you assert dominance over others, and this is not only limited to your own citizens. It is a great tool in foreign policy and when dealing with other political authorities too.
I'm saying there's the third option--respect. It's not fear. It's more that that. It's when the society sees compliance with the law as a cultural value. That can be a cornerstone for rule, too. The fear of punishment by the government is part of respect (as in some sense love is part of respect too), but it's not the whole of it. It's not extrinsic motivation in the sense that people are going around making risk vs. reward calculations. It's an internal motivation where people simply don't want to break the laws in the first place.
I can agree with that for sure. But as you yourself said, isn't this something that encompasses both love and hate?
The lines are getting blurry..
People should not *fear* the law until it abuses them, with no recourse possible. In other words, in a just society, the law is a boundary to liberty, not an assault upon it.
I'm not particularly interested in this question from a philosophical standpoint because it's fairly situational and there are a lot of "it depends."
I AM interested in this question from a video games systems standpoint. 
Is it better to be feared or loved in a video game? I like when video games play with this question and apply rewards/consequences depending on what route you take or what balance you strike between the two. I always go the loved route because I hate being mean to imaginary characters.
Take a look at any government in the world. The cornerstone for their rule is that the citizens fear the law. If the people wouldn't fear the government, then it is doing something wrong and would indeed be quite useless.
Don't think is the case at all. It's a very specific morality that suggests that the only thing between order and chaos is fear of reprisal.
Government is a mechanism for facilitating commonality; its economy of scale for people. There's nothing intrinsically frightening about it.
Yeah, the idea that people comply with the law simply for fear of reprisal smacks of the idea that people only behave morally because of religion.
Yeah, the idea that people comply with the law simply for fear of reprisal smacks of the idea that people only behave morally because of religion.
Exactly. Penn Gillette was asked what prevents him from raping and murdering all he wants since he is an atheist. He responded that he did rape and murder all he wants and he wants precisely zero. Moreover, the very idea that someone needs a magical, invisible superman in the sky that punishes such behavior to govern the individual behavior of the religious is both frightening and telling of the sorts of people who need such stuff (e.g.: Dangerous black boy Ben Carson).
This idea that force is the only legitimacy in the state is precisely backward imho. Though it is important that the societal Leviathan have a monopoly on violence (otherwise every psychotic swinging dick would open carry his way to intimidating others in his infantile idea of "justice"), the legitimacy of the state in a modern democracy is in that it provides a mechanism for self governance. It has a monopoly on force because it is legitimate, not the other way around.
IMO there is nothing wrong with having a healthy fear of the law. Some laws are created from a deterrence policy perspective (happens a lot in tax legislation) and people will take a mile when given an inch.
I'd agree with complexmath on the comment that you can easily divorce fear and love from leadership qualities; the former being matters of perception and the latter can be demonstrated absent fear or love. The problem is that modern politics and leadership often degenerate into matters of perception so that leaders don't do what they were given the mandate to fulfill.
Different use of the word "fear". Do you fear the law as a citizen of Pol Pot's Cambodia would fear his leaders? Or do you fear it in the "God-fearing" sense; ie, respect it's power?
I don't believe the former is healthy in any state, and the law should not be regarded that way unless it's actually abusive (and yes, there are areas in the US and every nation where that happens, but it's not the norm, it's an abuse of power).
Yeah, the idea that people comply with the law simply for fear of reprisal smacks of the idea that people only behave morally because of religion.
I know religious people that believe this with conviction. It makes me wonder what they'd be doing if their faith wavered.
Just look at the behavior of the outspoken Moral Majority style leaders, and you'll get a good idea. Heck, didn't Huckabee say he'd have gone into female restrooms as a teen if he'd thought up claiming to be trans? Or was that Cruz?
Integrity wrote:"It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both."
The correct response to this quote is this:
Better for whom?
Machiavelli was an amoral high-functioning sociopath, consumed with his desire to gain and keep political power at any cost, up to and including razing entire cities. What was unusual about him was his willingness to write about and discuss his methods and reasoning. It is also quite certain that his subjects, and others who suffered under similar rulers, probably disagreed pretty strongly with what was "better" for them.
Machiavelli was a beaten broken man when he was writing The Prince. He'd been forcibly removed from public service, imprisoned, and tortured. I see The Prince as a desperate attempt to gain notice and favor from Giuliano de' Medici, and to reclaim some former glory for himself and Italy as a nation.
The oft-quoted "better to be feared than loved" is often mentioned without the caveats that Machiavelli included.
The prince must none the less make himself feared in such a way that, if he is not loved, at least he escapes being hated. For fear is quite compatible with an absence of hatred; and the prince can always avoid hatred if he abstains from the property of his subjects and citizens and from their women....
So, on this question of being loved or feared, I conclude that since some men love as they please but fear when the prince pleases, a wise prince should rely on what he controls, not on what he cannot control. He must only endeavor, as I said, to escape being hatred.
Honestly, the ideas in The Prince have been so well absorbed into the political world in the following centuries that when you read it today, you'll find nothing particularly shocking.
Aetius wrote:Integrity wrote:"It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both."
The correct response to this quote is this:
Better for whom?
Machiavelli was an amoral high-functioning sociopath, consumed with his desire to gain and keep political power at any cost, up to and including razing entire cities. What was unusual about him was his willingness to write about and discuss his methods and reasoning. It is also quite certain that his subjects, and others who suffered under similar rulers, probably disagreed pretty strongly with what was "better" for them.
Machiavelli was a beaten broken man when he was writing The Prince. He'd been forcibly removed from public service, imprisoned, and tortured. I see The Prince as a desperate attempt to gain notice and favor from Giuliano de' Medici, and to reclaim some former glory for himself and Italy as a nation.
The oft-quoted "better to be feared than loved" is often mentioned without the caveats that Machiavelli included.
The prince must none the less make himself feared in such a way that, if he is not loved, at least he escapes being hated. For fear is quite compatible with an absence of hatred; and the prince can always avoid hatred if he abstains from the property of his subjects and citizens and from their women....
So, on this question of being loved or feared, I conclude that since some men love as they please but fear when the prince pleases, a wise prince should rely on what he controls, not on what he cannot control. He must only endeavor, as I said, to escape being hatred.
Honestly, the ideas in The Prince have been so well absorbed into the political world in the following centuries that when you read it today, you'll find nothing particularly shocking.
Wait, I thought he wrote it while helping Ezio take down the Borgias?
ASSASSIN'S CREED IS NOT REAL!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pr...
It is known from his personal correspondence that it was written during 1513, the year after the Medici took control of Florence, and a few months after Machiavelli's arrest, torture, and banishment by the in-coming Medici regime.
Different use of the word "fear". Do you fear the law as a citizen of Pol Pot's Cambodia would fear his leaders? Or do you fear it in the "God-fearing" sense; ie, respect it's power?
I don't believe the former is healthy in any state, and the law should not be regarded that way unless it's actually abusive (and yes, there are areas in the US and every nation where that happens, but it's not the norm, it's an abuse of power).
There is plenty of jurisprudential literature which argue that laws like those imposed by Nazi Germany and Khmer Rouge are not laws. In any nation purporting to invole the rule of law, it must carry the support of the people. Laws aren't made in a vacuum and I agree that fear from dispproportionate punishment is not a healthy way to rule.
Apparently, Machiavelli's work before and after The Prince have been nonstop criticism and mockery of totalitarian forms of governance. This was extremely radical in an age and place where that was the way everyone else thought and acted; and for which he was tortured, maimed, and exiled.
A ruler (leader) must be able to command his/her troops and minions....In Machiavelli's mind there are three ways to do this
1. Your Troops Love You
2. Your Troops Fear You
3. Your Troops are paid a lot of money/favors by you
He rejects 3 as creating a situation ripe for treason (as someone could always offer them more to betray you) hence why he disliked the use of mercenaries.
Being Loved is great but it is unreliable both in its gain and its loss and it can create situations in which the (minion) is not sure what it is supposed to do to
Fear is reliable both in it creating it and using it to motivate making it the "better" of the two (Love and Fear)
But you actually "need" both as otherwise you will be hated which will lead to your downfall.
![KrazyTaco[FO]'s picture](https://www.gamerswithjobs.com/files/pictures/picture-100746-1453603815.jpg "KrazyTaco[FO]'s picture")
Is it rude to point out that medieval theories of workforce management just *might* have been supplanted by better ideas over the last, I dunno, 500 years?
Is it rude to point out that medieval theories of workforce management just *might* have been supplanted by better ideas over the last, I dunno, 500 years? :-)
I don't know about rude, but it runs contrary to the present dominant political ideology (at least here in the South) that there is no such thing as progress and that every moral decision must be inspired by the original intent of poorly understood "ancients".
A ruler (leader) must be able to command his/her troops and minions....In Machiavelli's mind there are three ways to do this
1. Your Troops Love You
2. Your Troops Fear You
3. Your Troops are paid a lot of money/favors by youHe rejects 3 as creating a situation ripe for treason (as someone could always offer them more to betray you) hence why he disliked the use of mercenaries.
He disliked mercenaries for a lot of reasons. They are cowardly. They tend to avoid actual fighting. They don't fight well. They're not invested. Their leaders might decide they'd make a better prince than you.
It is best to drink from the milk of human kindness. Doing this will make you strong and green.
gomorra3 wrote:A ruler (leader) must be able to command his/her troops and minions....In Machiavelli's mind there are three ways to do this
1. Your Troops Love You
2. Your Troops Fear You
3. Your Troops are paid a lot of money/favors by youHe rejects 3 as creating a situation ripe for treason (as someone could always offer them more to betray you) hence why he disliked the use of mercenaries.
He disliked mercenaries for a lot of reasons. They are cowardly. They tend to avoid actual fighting. They don't fight well. They're not invested. Their leaders might decide they'd make a better prince than you.
To be fair, mercs and conscriptions did not work well for most militaries throughout history up until him, unless you were the Mongols.
To be fair, mercs and conscriptions did not work well for most militaries throughout history up until him, unless you were the Mongols.
Pages