In Selected Political Writing, the following quote stands out amongst many: “It is much safer to be feared than loved because …love attaches men by ties of obligation…. but fear restrains men because they are afraid of punishment, and this fear never leaves them.” When given the choice to be loved or feared, one aspires to have both. Love because it draws those one wants near, and fear because it pushes those one does not want way. Machiavelli believes that love and hate are different in what benefits they provide to those who use them wisely. Machiavelli states that since love and fear can hardly exist together, one should choose fear.
Most would strongly agree with the belief claiming that fear will lead to hatred. This only occurs if one lets cruelty interfere with his/her emotions. In dealing with fear removed from or with a lack of emotion, fear becomes a tool with which to be reckoned. Fear either paralyzes those who witness it or are the recipients of it, or it becomes a force that can be the cause of people and things changing.
It seems as if Machiavelli strongly believed that the enforcement of cruelty upon individuals is highly needed when building or newly ruling a principality, especially when there is a slight possibility of rebellion amongst the people. Machiavelli says that cruelty can either be done well or badly and the determinator of how moral the cruelty is is based upon thinking thoughtfully, being fearless, avoiding excess self-confidence, employing policies that are moderated by sympathy and having suitable reasons for execution. Essentially, Machiavelli believes that by removing oneself from the consequences of fear, one becomes detached from the possible negatives that must be done in order to promote the intended results. However, would these ideas of cruelty discussed by Machiavelli be classified under Tyranny? If so Plato describes this idea of this regime as the worse. Although cruelty may not seem moral to other philosophers such as Plato, it is a significant part of success when ruling a principality. In order to do it well, though, one must understand how to properly maintain/balance fear and love amongst their people.
In chapter eight Machiavelli discusses the idea “of those who come to power through wicked actions”. Again, he shows that in order to gain control over a group, one must use fear to find the successes one desires. There are examples of this belief throughout the text.
Machiavelli discusses both an ancient and modern example of the two ways a private citizen can become a ruler without involving the acquisitions of power through fortune or strength. The first example provided is an ancient one about Agathocles, who rose from the lowest conditions of life to become king of Syracuse. Machiavelli credits Agathocles’ audacity and courage, but he does not provide credit to Agathocles rising to power. Agathocles has his soldiers murder the senators and richest citizens of Syracuse. Although Agathocles wins, he does not earn Machiavelli’s honor. Machiavelli refuses to associate with Agathocles’ success and shows his criticism to his deceitful methods of a massacre. Machiavelli then clarifies the distinction between virtue and vice by arguing that cruelty can be used both well and poorly.
People may view Machiavelli as an evil philosopher, but I believe this moment within the text strongly exhibits that Machiavelli has parameters for cruelty. It shows that he is not a philosopher who believes in ruthless killings like a majority of people believe. The idea of not crediting a ruler who gained power through cruelty parallels the discussion of Machiavelli’s criteria of being successful using cruelty.
While Machiavelli explains in chapter 17 the idea of how cruelty helped Cesare Borgia unite, render, and peacefully restore order in Romagna, he elaborates on some things that will help one be successful when using cruelty amongst his/her people. He explains that it is important to think twice before acting; impulse decisions do not lead to the best outcomes. He also reinforces the fact that one should not be afraid of his/her own shadow; however, one should avoid excessive self-confidence because it can soon lead to carelessness.
In book two chapter two, Machiavelli discusses the importance of unification of ones people of the Romans, the people had a genuine and passionate desire for freedom; something that was essentially contradicted by the existence of “the king”, or royalty. Machiavelli asserts that a society generally prospers when the people are directed by the notion that the needs of the many are more valuable than the needs of a few- or in context, the needs of the private individual. Machiavelli relates the concept of liberty to the unification of a community, as public interests coincide with the vast majority of the people’s interest.
Employing policies that are moderated by sympathy is an exceedingly important detail because when enforcing policies for the people, one whom rule must serve the interest of the people. Machiavelli says, “As long as you serve their interests, they are devoted to you.” This is only fair if one is looking for support rather than rebellion. Along with implementing policies that benefit the people, a ruler should respect the people’s land and inheritance, never bothering one’s property unless it is unbearably necessary.
According to Machiavelli, most people are rather quick to forget deaths, but rather hold on to a tight grudge against the loss of inheritance which brings in the idea of murder and execution. Whenever a ruler desires to kill off someone, he/she should have a valid reason for the execution. Pointless killing with unexplainable reasoning only leads to anger amongst the people causing rebellion. Machiavelli discusses that killing off two or three people to maintain order is far more moral than to allow riots amongst the community. Executing one or two people causes less of a disruption in a principality and creates fear of punishment within men. However, philosophers like Plato would strongly disagree with these actions and classify Machiavelli’s ideas as tyranny, the worst regime.
Machiavelli believed in “Virtu” which is whatever is best for the State while Plato focused on the idea of being just and having just rulers. Machiavelli argues that a ruler’s purpose is to protect its civilians from attacks from other states. The ruler is permitted to do whatever is necessary to maintain order in a principality even if it is unjust. Plato would disagree with Machiavelli with the idea that a ruler can never be unjust. Plato’s ideal city and Machiavelli’s realist society were viewed through different eras. They both were more concerned with the idea of how things should be and not how they were. However, Plato’s idea of a city being filled with just and virtue seems unrealistic compared to Machiavelli. Machiavelli was worried about how reality was and not how things could be perfect as Plato did.
To maintain order and rebut rebellion, a ruler needs to implement cruelty amongst its people, so fear remains amongst them. Machiavelli discusses two examples of cruelty: one where it is used and one where it is not. Although Hannibal does not successfully conquer Rome, Machiavelli praises him for the cruelty he used to maintain control of his army. With cruelty, one should not fear rebellion and should have unity and discipline amongst his army. Hannibal’s reputation varied differently from his rival, Scipio. Scipio is an example of how the lack of cruelty leads to the betrayal of one’s army. Scipio’s lack of enforcement and too much leniency led to a weakened Rome and army. Machiavelli provides these two examples to show that when leading an army, one should strive to have a reputation for cruelty.
Machiavelli’s ideology on the unification of a principality presents a reliable argument as to why cruelty and violence are a necessity. Although his philosophy may be seen as evil or unjust, Machiavelli presents a realistic idea that presenting more love than fear will create abruption to one’s principality. Machiavelli does not simply convey the idea that murdering people is okay; he provides plenty of examples through the text to show that cruelty is often a necessary evil.