Now you are faced with the key question of which Machiavelli wrote about in his book The Prince. Machiavelli asked the question: whether it is better to be loved than feared, or the reverse. Machiavelli's response was "The answer is, of course, that it would be best to be both loved and feared. But since the two rarely come together,l anyone compelled to chose will find greater security in being feared than in being loved."
This week's Blog Topic:
As a ruler, it is better to be loved or feared? Be sure to defend your answer and provide clear examples for support.
While I was reading this, I definitely believed that it would be best to be feared rather than loved as a ruler. As I neared the end of the post, I was admittedly perplexed as to which to choose. However, as Machiavelli stated, “The answer is of course, that it would be best to be both loved and feared. But since to the two rarely come together…”. I would have to say that I would rather be loved than feared as a ruler. It comes with a few more advantages than being feared. One of the downsides of being feared rather than loved would be that it would create more disagreements. My nation’s people would live a life of fear and it would never really allow any room for freedom and suggestions. People would be too afraid to speak up if they felt something was wrong. For example, Hitler was a dominating ruler. Millions of people feared for their lives while he was the leader of Germany. There were many riots and uprisings; however a large percent of the Jewish population dared not to object Hitler’s decisions. As a result of that, the Holocaust took place. If I was loved more than I was feared, people inhabited in my country would feel more comfortable and would more willingly follow laws if they had no such problems with them. Also, being loved would create a healthier relationship between the people I am permitted to govern and me. A ruler should be someone who is a role model and leader, not someone who uses power for the wrong reasons, such as making a fearful title. Therefore, I would have to disagree with Machiavelli’s opinion and say that as a ruler, it would be better to be loved rather than feared.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your opinion, it is better to be loved than feared. I also like the point that you stated "My nation’s people would live a life of fear and it would never really allow any room for freedom and suggestions." If this held true in today's society, I feel it would have a negative influence. There might not have been a technology era, and machinery would be outdated, because no one would have the supplies or proper requirements to build on ideas. -Tom Hindle
DeleteTank, I agree with your blog post that it is better to be loved rather than feared as a ruler. I generally included some of the some reasons to back up my argument. I really liked how you proposed the example of Hitler to better evaluate where your viewpoint was coming from. Unlike you when you said you were perplexed in which side to choose, I immediately thought being loved was more beneficial right after reading the post.
DeleteI agree on your point that loved leaders set an example as a role model, but there are consequences to being loved as a ruler. People will more likely turn their backs on loved leaders than feared leaders. Fear is generally more effective because it convinces people to do the right thing and obey the law. If a loved ruler is in charge, there would be a shaky control on society since people would feel that they can get away with anything (meaning more crimes, violence, etc...) I would like to conclude by saying that even though you provided good points for your argument, you are missing the entire picture.
DeleteI really do agree with your statement. The benefits you included of being a loved ruler were very good. I especially like how you mentioned that Hitler was a dominating ruler. People would definitely feel comfortable having you as a loved ruler.
DeleteI agree with you on that a ruler should be loved and feared, nice quote by the way. I kind of said the same thing in my post. A ruler should not be so stern that his subjects would want to overthrow him, he should considerate as well, to the people that is.
DeleteUsing the way Hitler ruled millions of people was a great example to use for this question. I was thinking of how I can relate Hitler to this when I was writing, but I couldn't think of any ideas supporting my opinion. You brought up that this caused tons of people to live in fear and that it caused riots and uprisings. However, I would like to point out that since Hitler was so harsh and fearful, no one spoke up or said anything. Because of this, millions and millions of minorities died and it was a very sad tragedy. Leading your country with fear can only lead to worse things in the future.
DeleteI honestly thought being feared was better. I thought if you were feared, no one would want to go to war with you. But, then I realized, if you are loved, still, no one would want to cause a war with you. It is a better decision to choose allies over enemies. This is beneficial for trade, and markets. Also, in case of natural disaster, ally-countries can come to your aid to help. As an example, in WWII America had allies with various countries: United Kingdom, Republic of China, British India, and Canada. This allowed us to come together for the greater good of the world. If these countries did not come together, perhaps we would be living in a different world than we do today.
ReplyDeleteAlso, what about local? Besides a World War, what about the citizens of the governed land? If they have a fearful leader, who is to say they won't rebel to make a difference? However, if the citizens lived in a happy kingdom, there would be no need for confrontation.
Overall, I feel Machiavelli did not think it through, of the consequences of choosing a tyrant. -Tom Hindle
I definitely agree that being loved has more advantages than being feared. I liked how you mentioned about having more allies during war because I did not think of that! Also, I liked how you said trade would be an advantage as well because other countries would be more willing to trade with someone that is cooperative. Like I mentioned in my post as well, there would be no need for confrontation if the people were happy with their leader and did not fear to object a law. As you stated in the end, Machiavelli probably did not think it through!
DeleteTom, I agreed with your post. Being loved as a ruler is definitely more beneficial than being feared. I similarly had the same thought process as you when you said how even with the one benefit of being feared, being loved still overcame it. Your rhetorical questions included made a great source of supporting your opinion. Machiavelli had probably not thought of the many ways that being loved is the better choice.
DeleteI can agree with your point that it is a better decision to choose allies over enemies, but that isn't the entire problem here. Wouldn't a feared leader make a country safer since others would be less likely to attack? There will always be enemies and allies no matter what, but the main point is that the leader creates a powerful nation. Without fear, people would be more likely to disappoint their leader and there will be no consequences. However, I felt that your points were strong and definitely support your argument.
DeleteBeing loved absolutely has more benefits than being feared, and you showed that really well. I like the statement that you used, "It is better to choose allies over enemies.". This is very true, because you'd be able to turn to them for help in the event that you ever needed it. Plus, I thought it was clever how you incorporated information from World War II into your statement.
DeleteYou mentioned some thoughts that I didn't think of before. You included the people outside of the specific group of people you are leading, not just the people you are leading. It is very true that you should choose allies over enemies for two main reasons. One is that you will have more gun power and more people on your side if you do somehow get into a war. The second reason is so you don't go into war for stupid reasons and so you can negotiate and have a country/ group that will be there for you and come up with plans for the benefits of both countries/groups.
DeleteRulers can being feared by people but it don't mean the countries they ruled must being feared by foreign countries...in my opinion, being ONLY feared can throw the country into turmoil and undermine the people's unity. However, you point of view is definitely not wrong and I liked you put WWII to support your perspective~ (tho I am not sure if it is appropriate to used in here lol) Nice job!
DeleteI fully agree that having allies is better than having enemies. You listed great points such as trading and markets would be beneficial. As you mentioned citizens would want to overthrow you to make a difference. Machiavelli definitely didn't think about the consequences of being feared than loved. Great post!
DeleteAs Hamlet once said "To be, or not to be...", so to be loved or feared as a ruler is the question. As a ruler it is better to be loved than feared. If a ruler had it's people afraid of him, everything those people did would be because of fear. No one respects a demanding, inconsiderate person who does as they please. Whenever the feared ruler will ask for something, people would do it out of fear, so nothing would be done for truly loving him as a ruler, but instead for fearing him. An example of a ruler that was feared is Mussolini, the dictator that seized control of Italy from 1922 to 1943. Everyone feared him, who wouldn't when their ruler deprived the Italians of their civil liberties, and formed an alliance with Hitler. Everyone would follow Mussolini and what he said so they wouldn't die. They did not live one day without worries during his reign. If that seems to be confusing imagine a persons fear of school. At school most people are scared of failing, so thats the only reason they really do work, so no one does all the work for fun. This means when you fear something or a ruler, everything you do is because of your fear of that thing or person. To be loved means not having to worry about whether you will have your own people attack you, and when people did something for you, you know its from their will. When you are loved as a ruler your subjects will do what is asked of them and also will respect what is not asked of them, for their actions will come from a place of devotion and respect. So they will take in to consideration that anything put before them needs to be done for the sheer fact that it needs to be done. For when you love something, you truly work form the heart and will aspire to go above and beyond, versus when you do something out of fear you just do it to get it done. As a ruler its better to be loved than feared.
ReplyDeleteHava, I LOVED how you entered your post with a supporting quote and included a reasonable example to back up your opinion! Although it is great to talk about the opposing side from your initial viewpoint, I felt that you should have included more about being loved rather than feared which was your belief. Also, there was little repetition in some of your reasonings. Other than that, I completely agreed with where you were coming from!
DeleteI agree and disagree with you. A ruler should be loved, yes, but, should also be stern so he or she could keep control. it is important for a ruler to have a firm grasp over his subjects, but not too firm. So a ruler should be feared but considerate. Not totally loved, in opinion.
DeleteHava, great post! Agreed with all of your points. It is necessary for a ruler to be loved by its people. If people fear their ruler, like you said, they would only be obeyingto their commands in fear. The ruler would not earn any respect if he/she does not give it in return to their people. I like how you said "For when you love something, you truly work form the heart and will aspire to go above and beyond, versus when you do something out of fear you just do it to get it done." That was a very valid point which I did not think of before reading your post
DeleteHava, I think you did great on your blog! I definitely agree that a ruler should be loved rather than feared. I enjoyed the quote you started out with in the beginning of your post as well. One of the examples I liked that you mentioned, was the students' fear of school and how they only do work so that they don't fail.I used many of the reasons you had in your post as well, and I really think you did a good job on elaborating on all your points in the argument.
DeleteI like your points. Such as those who do something out of will, do it more diligently then someone/something that caused them to do it by force. Also, I feel your facts about previous war Generals was an interesting touch. I especially like how you incorporated Shakespeare's quote as well. Since it IS a question on, to be or not to be, a tyrant. -Tom Hindle
ReplyDeleteAs a ruler, I would prefer to be loved rather than feared. As soon as I read this blog post, the advantages of being loved over-weighed the one advantage of being feared. The only advantage, in my perspective that comes out of being feared as a ruler is that you can have a more demanding approach which links to a greater portion of the populace being bound to obey your rules in frightfulness. But there stand far more reasons as to being an appreciated ruler. The citizens that are being ruled would be more comfortable and open in situating their perspective on certain topics. This is very important when ruling specific land because the inputs of others help the area prosper. In being a ruler that is loved, you would not have to worry about threats being appointed to you. Coercion is unnecessary to be added to a ruler’s life on top of the pressure of maintaining a well composed society. The ruler would be described and conversed about in only positive words. They would be treasured, respected, cherished, and prized for their esteem characteristics. After all, who wouldn’t love that feeling of being respected for performing good deeds for all? In all obviousness, a ruler should make a good impression and be a role model for others without a degrading name. This can also have a domino effect of progress because other countries would notice your well-beings. “The supreme happiness of life is the conviction that we are loved. . .” is quoted by Victor Hugo. I would have to disagree with Machiavelli that being feared has a greater security.
ReplyDeleteYour point that being feared doesn't have a positive effect on a nation is debatable. I my opinion, loved leaders are more loose with their judgements and create a more comfortable environment. However, there are risks to a comfortable environment such as violent behavior and rules being disobeyed. As a loved leader there is a greater chance people will turn their back on you and disobey laws without being inflicted with the consequences. In entirety, I really liked your points because they were clear and provide for a good argument.
DeleteNader I disagree with you once again. It isn't nececsarily true "As a loved leader there is a greater chance people will turn their back on you and disobey laws without being inflicted with the consequences" Obama is a loved leader by many people and not really thought to be feared. He doesn't allow people who love him to break the law without being noticed. I think you are thinking of old times or thinking to small, like a household leader. Sorry I disagree with you again.
DeleteAbu, I am pretty sure Obama is not a totally loved leader. I mean he hasn't been the best president, and we did vote him into office again, but that doesn't mean he deserved it. His first term was better by far than his second term so far. If you think about it Obama has done a mediocre job under pressure. But i do agree with Nader though, on how a loved ruler could be considered a pushover by other rulers. I disagree with you Abu, but agree with Nader.
DeleteShivani, I would agree with fully that it is better to be loved than feared as a ruler. You had some greats points as to why the advantages of being loved, outweigh the ones of being feared. I would agree that being feared creates a more demanding and disciplined nation, however, being loved would lead more people into following the rules as well, because it hasn't been pushed against their will. I think that you had some great examples and in the end, you mentioned "who wouldn't want the feeling of being respected for performing good deeds for all?" I think that was a great point to add. Good job!
DeleteAs a ruler, it is better to be feared than to be loved. A ruler that is feared has a firm control on a country and will have a strict set of rules everyone will try to abide by. Since the ruler is feared by many, he or she will be listened to no matter what because of the consequences. A loved ruler, will of course have more followers and supporters but people wouldn't be correctly disciplined since they would have the idea that they can get away with anything. As mentioned in class, Christopher Columbus had to instill fear into his crew members so that they wouldn't break rules. As a form of discipline, he cut off one person's tongue and warned that this could happen to anyone that disobeyed. Since he was a feared "leader" on the ship, the crew members were less likely to disappoint him. Now apply this concept to a powerful leader of a large nation. In order to maintain stability in the nation, the leader needs to show some sort of discipline and firm character. Once the leader is feared, the chances of being attacked is slim (increase security within nation). All in all, feared leaders work more effectively because people will be aware of the consequences and not turn their backs on their leaders.
ReplyDeleteNader, although you included some very good examples into your statement, I still disagree with you. Just because a ruler is loved, that doesn't mean that they can't correctly discipline their people. Plus, if people feared their ruler, they wouldn't exactly have a healthy relationship with them. They would just be living in discomfort.
DeleteI disagree with you. When you are a feared leader there is a chance that (if you are countries leader) people would impeach you or protest. Also, if you were a feared leader you would have to go to extreme measures to keep your people in hand. Saddam Hussein, he killed thousands of people and later was killed by hanging. He was a man who killed his own people and was “feared”. People won’t like fearer leaders. Here’s a question for you, Bashar al-Assad, the leader of Syria, is a "feared" person, do you agree with what he’s doing and the way he treats his people?
DeleteYou made good points in your post but I disagree with you. I feel the people of a leader's nation, for example, will listen to a leader they loved even more than they would of someone they feared and they would be living in happiness and peace. Why be a leader and force certain things and scare your nation? Is that your last resort because you don't have any better or more humane ideas? Think about how the people will be affected as well, and not just how much the leader will benefit from terrifying the people he/she's leading. Remember the leader's main goal should be improving the health of his/her nation and the people around him/her, not himself.
DeleteGood arguments as to how a feared leader is beneficial than a loved one, but I have to disagree with this. A leader needs to be respected. How can anyone respect their leader if all the leader focuses on is intimidating the people? Healthy relationships between the people and the leader would not be able to form.
DeleteNader I agree fully with your statement and reasons. I too believe that the best ruler is one who is feared by his subjects due to the fear of being punished if they do something wrong. This allows the ruler to have a tighter grip and allows him to carry out orders with ease. I liked your Christopher Columbus example. I too would behave and do as i was told if it meant my tongue still being in my mouth. This is a phycological approach which includes the punishment as stimuli for bad behavior.
DeleteHonestly, as a ruler, I would much rather be loved than to be feared. Some people think that it is better to be a feared ruler because you'd be able to demand virtually anything from anyone. However, I strongly believe that being loved is the better option. A loved ruler is one who is able to have good relationships with the people they are ruling. This ensures that my people would put their trust in me and be able to live happy lives free from discomfort and fear, knowing that they have a ruler like me. Plus, I would want to be a good role model towards those I'm ruling.
ReplyDeleteNot only would I be loved by my people, but I could also potentially be loved by the rulers of other countries. I would definitely have their respect, which could ultimately prevent wars and conflicts with these countries from happening. Plus, in case something like that were ever to happen, I'd have allies on my side. Also, if I ever struggled during my reign and needed help, I would most likely be able to turn to one of these allies for their help and assistance.
So, to sum it all up, it is better to be a loved ruler than to be a feared one. There are far more benefits of being loved than being feared. Also, you don't have to be feared to gain people's respect.
I agree with you. I would rather have a leader that is lovable rather than feared. For example, as I said in my post I would never want to live in a feared place like North Korea. The risk of death is there every day. Additionally, it was a good idea writing the article in the point of view as a person living in the country.
DeleteIn your post, I like how you stated it would prevent war conflicts, and you would gain alliances. I feel this is important to run a nation of strength, because sometimes running on your own steam is too risky. -Tom Hindle
DeleteFeared or loved? As a leader and as a person I would rather be loved than feared. If you are a loved leader you will have more supporters and people on your side when you are going through hardships. Also, if you are a loved leader other countries would be able to negotiate with you easier. Being a feared leader is never a good thing. When you are feared people would like to impeach you and to keep your area in control you will have to go to extreme measures. For example, Christopher Columbus, he cut the people's tongues after they disobeyed him. Quite extreme after seeing that he was wrong and the ship had the right to disobey him, he was lying to them. A loved leader is always someone people will believe in. Additionally, if you are a loved leader you could increase your countries popultation. A person would more rather go to a country that has a loved leader than a country like North Korea with their feared leader. I would rather be a loved leader than feared.
ReplyDeleteAbu, I agree with you fully. Being a feared leader IS never a good thing. I liked your examples on Christopher Columbus and how he was feared.
DeleteI agree with you Abu. It is better to be loved and to have more leaders on your side. Your examples were good, North Korea's leader is a feared leader who has caused many in his country to suffer. Good job.
DeleteAbu I strongly disagree with your statement. I believe being a feared ruler is best. The reason being when you are loved people wont do as you command the same way a person would as if they feared you. One example would be like would you listen more to a teacher who is fun and lets you do as you please or a teacher who is strict and stern. THe greater percentage would listen better to the stern teacher. The same basic principal applies with the type of ruler that is better.
DeleteAbu I fully agree with your opinion and insight on this topic. However, I disagree with David's opinion because being feared would be morally wrong and is not the way to efficiently run a country by commanding others and not having allies because you're feared.
DeleteAs a ruler, it is important that your subjects fear you. I know this sounds rough, but when you are feared it is easier for you to get things done. As a feared ruler you can have your subjects do what you want and as you want it, with no complants. Your people would not have the guts to stick up to you since they fear you, which means you get be the "head of the ship" longer. But there is a catch to be being feared. You have to be considerate to your subjects, with this you will gain their trust. with the people's trust, you can control over them with ease. All i'm trying to say here is that, a ruler needs to be feared, but considerate to get things done.
ReplyDeleteHi Ian! I just wanted to say that I disagree with you. In my opinion, being feared is not the most efficent way to run your country. You mentioned that you will "gain people's trust and you can control over them with ease." I don't think I'd fully trust somebody I feared. Yes, you will get immediate reaction from the people, but in the long run, this method would not be successful.
DeleteIan, it is not necessary for your subjects to fear you in order to have control over them and get things done. I think that a respected leader that is considerate towards their people will get respect from them and be able to accomplish even more.
DeleteIan, I also thought this when I started reading the topic, but I realized there are more benefits of being loved than feared. No one would actually respect someone they feared, if it seemed like they were, it is most likely an act.
DeleteIan I agree completely with your view point that a feared ruler is more effective and is capable of getting more things done as the head of the country. I especially liked you metaphor when you related being a ruler as being the ''Head of the ship''.
DeleteAs a leader of a country, I would want to be loved versus feared. Being loved has more advantages than being feared. Managing your country with fear creates instant results, though it lacks long-term success. Also, when you direct people around by using their fear, they will eventually become rebellious. You will lose control of the country and be forced to take extreme actions.
ReplyDeleteTo be loved helps you develop skills today, for tomorrow. The citizens of your countries will want to do things for you. They will support you through any decision, strictly because they do not fear you. They will most likely agree with your leadership skills.
Another important thing about being loved is that people will help you build a good reputation. All that really matters is how you look to other countries. If your residents like you, as a leader, they will help you in any way.
To be loved is more important and beneficial than being feared. The goal is to form a strong bond within your country.
I completely agree with your opinion Kaitlyn! This is because your evidence toward ruling with love matched mine. For example, I also talked about how fear would not help the kingdom in the long run. However I like how you took it another step by boldly stating that love would also help long term. The mentioning of how love and leadership would correlate in this situation was quite crucial and made your opinion a little more unique Good Job!
DeleteIf I were a leader, it is clear to me that it would be the best decision to be loved by your followers. Sure, as a leader you want full control, and if you are greatly feared, your followers will obey your every command in a snap. Yes, I see the utmost pro to this side, but being loved positively is a better scheme than the plan of being feared as a leader. If you are loved by your followers, it will be more likely for you to gain their side and in a reasonable manner. Secondly, do you want to truly lead your territory, become a strong group with common interests and promote good ideas/thoughts or dictate it and cause suffering to the people you lead? Also, there is a much lesser chance that the group you are leading will turn on you because of the simple fact that they love you and are not AFRAID of what you will do next. Lastly, I feel going about being a leader the right way is to search for peace and love among your crowd instead of searching for fear for easy power and manipulation. Ask any leader of a country, state, or even city, and I would assure you they would agree with my viewpoint.
ReplyDeleteI agree fully about your opinion that being loved is better than being feared because the citizens would be on you side. I really like how you exclaimed about leading your territory to become stronger because if you are feared your country would not improve and grow. Great post!
DeleteAs a ruler, being loved by my people would certainly be a pro over being feared. To start with, how can a leader, who is feared by his/her people be able to open up and reach out to them? In being a leader, it is vital to establish healthy relationships with fellow citizens and have the capability to listen to their concerns on certain issues they may have. A leader who is demanding towards his/her people is unworthy of earning respect from the people they rule. In order to earn respect, you have to give it to others in return. A loving and considerate leader would have nothing but respect from their people. The people would feel comfortable around their leader and confident in asking about issues they have. Additionally, having a reputation of being lovable and caring can also lead to forming alliances with other countries. Leaders of other countries would see how much of an influence a sympathetic and kindhearted leader has on its people. They would be eager to have friendly relations with a country that consists of such a leader. This could also lead to new trade opportunities. As a final point, a leader who is loved by his/her people has a better chance of thriving than a leader who is feared.
ReplyDeleteBest post I've seen. You were able to defend your point without going overboard or repetition. Your reasonings are valid and strong. I agree when you said "A loving and considerate leader would have nothing but respect...". Overall, good job Kush.
DeleteGood post Kushali! I liked it very much. I agreed with you saying being love is certainly be a pro over being feared! Love can solve many difficulties! If the ruler makes people fear, no one will dare tell him the truth all the time!
DeleteThe first thought that popped into my mind when asked what type of ruler is most beneficial,I would have to go with the ruler that strikes fear into its people. A leader that is feared is most likely to be a great and effective leader, that people will follow and not try to overthrow due to the respect and intimidation they have. An example would be Ivan the Terrible who was a tsar of Russia in the 1500s. Ivan the terrible was a tsar who struck fear into his subjects but was also a very good and effective ruler. He brought Russia to the next level and better improved their conditions. That is why I believe being a feared ruler is better than being a loved ruler.
ReplyDeleteWell, first I have to say I don't really like this week's topic...because I insist it is not a right point of view to understand history. However, although I think being loved is more important than being feared, but I quite agree your opinion! I liked the way you put Ivan the Terrible as an example, but honestly I think he can consider "success" only because the scholars today examine him by the multi-dimensional view!
DeleteI completely agree with Gemma! (regarding this week's topic). Even though your post contradicted with my opinion, you advocated your point quite well. You were completely right about how fear creates intimidation. Unfortunately, as Akshay stated, this makes it harder for a kingdom to prosper to do the fact that no one would be willing to surpass the ruler in terms of improvement.
DeleteIn Machiavelli's book "The Prince", he responded to the question "whether it is better to be loved than feared, or the reverse." As saying "The answer is, of course, that it would be best to be both loved and feared. But since the two rarely come together,l anyone compelled to chose will find greater security in being feared than in being loved." Without doubt, as a high-minded ruler, both of being loved and feared are indispensable. But if can only choose one of them, I think that being loved is more important than being feared.
ReplyDeleteIn Confucius' view, a wise emperor must manage the country by virtue if he wants to ascend the supreme layer of benevolence realm. However, I strongly agree with him. There is a saying, "nothing forcibly done is going to be agreeable." A leader must be loved first in order to be highly respected. Any threat of force or power to strike fear in the hearts of people usually does not work as well as make people live happily.
Imagine there are two kings, one is broad, justice with mercy; the other is always using a commanding voice and uses his power to make people fear, which one you will be loyal to? In my opinion, a lot of difficulties (especially in the old period where kings have the power) can be solved by love. If a ruler was loved by his people, then he will have less enemy and social unrest. Fish begins to rot from the head. If the head of the nation can love people, then the people under him will know how to love each other, the people can cling together in times of trouble.
How can a ruler make people FEAR? In my point of view, the king that makes people fear is always using his power to kill anyone who wasn't very loyal to him and take advantage of his power to bully people. In order to consolidate his position, he will kill anyone he want and make people fear him so they will not be against him. An example of these kind of rulers (queens) is Mary I of England . Her brutal persecution made her people choke with silent fury...so that's why people today like to call her Bloody Mary~
The ruler who makes him/herself be feared is not a bad thing at all. If a ruler can't make his people fear, he can be considered as fatuous. But in general, I think a wise emperor will make himself be loved than be feared.
As a ruler, I would rather be loved than feared because of more advantages it would have and benefit my country. It would be morally wrong for me to have my people fear me because it would not make my country run efficiently. Citizens that love you would respect you and help bring insight on issues that arrive, so they can be fixed. Loyal citizens would not rebel and try to overthrow you as ruler. Also, having allies would be much easier if you are loved. No one would want to be an ally if you are a harsh and fearful ruler. If I was feared my country would fall apart because of hatred from my citizens. To maintain a strong and powerful country I would rather be loved to always improve my country and make it a comfortable and happy place to live.
ReplyDeleteHey Akshay, great post! I truly agreed with the part where you wrote that ruling with love would help improve your country. The inclusion of whether or not ruling with fear would be ethical was quite philosophical of you. I had never thought of that the way in which you ruled your kingdom could have an affect on the number of allies you had.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt is my firm belief that being loved would be better if I were a ruler, rather than being feared. This is because of the two main factors that would affect the length of my rule. They would be loyalty and happiness. If I was loved then as a result my people would be loyal to me. This is because those under my rule would be content (happy) and therefore there would be no reason for me to be betrayed. After all, a betrayal could lead to me being overthrown, or even killed. In simple terms, ruling with fear would lead to my eventual (yet undeniable) downfall. However, ruling with love would lead to a prosperous, well connected kingdom that could last for generations.
ReplyDelete