Every community and group of people should have a leader who makes significant decisions. It is a debatable question of how leaders can gain and present their role. Thus, Machiavelli produces an argument that it is safer for a leader to be feared than loved. This idea is based on the supposition that it is impossible to be the one and the other at the same time. In addition to that, there are a few premises that explain the reasoning of Machiavelli’s claim.
Firstly, the philosopher emphasizes that the argument is true because fear is an essential phenomenon that makes individuals either do or avoid doing something. When a leader or a prince wants subordinates to do something, they are more likely to follow the order if they are afraid of the leader. Secondly, Machiavelli states that all men are ungrateful and eager for gain. If the leader is loved, men can trench on their power. Thus, fear is the most effective way for a leader to control people and preserve the leading position.
However, Machiavelli’s argument faces much criticism because its premises are considered faulty. As contrary to the philosopher’s claim, numerous men are grateful and loyal. It means that they do not need to be afraid of their leaders to contribute to positive outcomes. There are many examples when productive relationships between leaders and subordinates are based on love, and families are the most suitable examples of this idea.
Consequently, it seems questionable that fear is the most effective factor that makes individuals behave in an appropriate way. It means that when people are loyal and grateful, severe problems can arise if a leader wants to be feared. This scenario can lead to the fact that fear will turn into hatred, and this negative feeling will be more likely to result in adverse or even tragic consequences for the leader. Thus, the given reasoning stipulates that to be feared leads to destructive hatred, which denies the ideas expressed by Machiavelli.
Even though Machiavelli’s thoughts have been contradicted, the following information will refute the reasoning mentioned in Paragraph 2. Firstly, Paragraph 2 relies on the fact that people are loyal and trustworthy. Even though these qualities are dominant in family relationships, the impact of this supposition disappears when it comes to large communities. It is a rare case when a leader manages to gather and control many loyal individuals. The real state of affairs, however, indicates that a few of them will be ungrateful. Without fear of the leader, these people are likely to trench on the principal’s role and power.
Secondly, if a leader is loved, subordinates can feel free to express and achieve their personal interests irrespective of what is ordered. It is a severe problem because when separate members pursue their own needs, it will result in adverse consequences for a whole community. Thus, this information means that when a leader is loved, subordinates feel much freedom, which makes it challenging to achieve successful outcomes. Once the results are not satisfactory, individuals start revolting against their leader. In conclusion, the reasoning in Paragraph 3 indicates that to be feared is an effective strategy to have control over numerous people and make them follow orders. However, it is also necessary to avoid using fear excessively not to create hatred for a leader among individuals.