When Machiavelli wrote, “It is better for a prince to be feared than loved,” (Machiavelli, 54) he was discussing certain aspects of human nature in addition to the role of the leader in society. Machiavelli’s reasoning centers on a couple of critical assumptions. Namely, his logic depends upon the idea that political leaders are to serve the primary purpose of securing certain behavior and certain levels of control among the population. Likewise, it assumes that fear is a greater motivator of human action than love. In providing this view, Machiavelli shows something unique about his view of the world and human nature. Namely, he takes an ant-Kantian view of human beings, arguing that they can and should be used as means available for manipulation toward a given end.
In order to understand Machiavelli’s reasoning, one must first understand his view on the role of the prince. His book, The Prince, is almost entirely about the means of being an effective leader, and in it, one can divine some understanding of how he views his leadership role. A leader, according to Machiavelli, is one whose primary purpose is to bring about certain actions by members of the populace. It views human beings as objects that can be exploited to achieve whatever ends the leader is looking to accomplish. Kant might argue that this particular view of people is wrong, and he might argue that Machiavelli should aim much higher with his leadership purpose. His view nonetheless leaves little room for the consideration of human value, instead viewing subjects as pawns devoid of their own inherent value.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"The Prince: Better to Be Feared than Loved".
After understanding that Machiavelli’s primary goal is to ensure that citizens do things that benefit the prince, one can begin to untangle his reasoning. He views both fear and love as tools that can motivate individuals, and by choosing fear over love, he is saying something both about human nature and about the nature of those two emotions. Specifically, Machiavelli sees love as being a flimsy motivator because love, unlike fear, lacks necessary consistency and certainty. Perhaps love could be a better motivator if people were more reliable, but in a world where people are almost constantly breaking their promises and bonds with other people, love is unsuitably unreliable. To this point, Machiavelli writes, “It is much safer to be feared than loved because …love is preserved by the link of obligation which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage; but fear preserves you by a dread of punishment which never fails” (Machiavelli, 37). Implicit in Machiavelli’s logic is an assumption about human beings. He assumes the worst of people, and he takes an extraordinarily shallow view of the term love. To him, one is “loved” when one is doing well and serving the needs of the people. Love, in this context, becomes little more than a performance measure, and it does not implicate concepts like “unconditionality,” which is a major component of love. Machiavelli subsequently doubts the ability of human beings to hold onto love through the ups and downs that a leader may go through.
Implicit in his judgment, as well, is the idea that fear can be a much more powerful motivator of action. If human beings are simply tools to be used to further an end, then fear is a major weapon to be used in that fight. According to Machiavelli, love can go in and out depending upon the times, but the fear of punishment is a constant motivator. Fear, then, is not dependent upon performance or perception. A leader would not have to be serving the needs of his people in order to drum up the requisite fear to keep people in line. Rather, a leader would simply have to maintain his position of power. Fear, then, requires very little of the leader rather than simply occupying his position in a meaningful way.
This view on human beings is quite simple, as it shows them motivated more by negative stimuli than by positive emotions. There are some critical assumptions that Machiavelli makes in order to allow his logic to work. First, he assumes that all people respond similarly to various emotions and that punishment is a relatively certain phenomenon in his society. In order for fear to be a more important motivator than love, people would need to be relatively certain that stepping out of line would land them in difficult circumstances. In addition, Machiavelli assumes that there is little benefit to the leader in getting people to act in a manner consistent with love. To him, staying in line or stepping out of line is a black and white ordeal. He fails to consider the fact that love, when it is motivating a person, might motivate that person to provide the leader with a brand of loyalty or service that cannot be motivated by fear alone. This is a conundrum faced by a wide range of business leaders, many of whom have found that employees are more productive when they are given benefits rather than when they work just based upon the fear of punishment or termination.
Ultimately Machiavelli’s logic makes critical assumptions about the capacity of human beings to consistently love. He completes desecrates the concept of unconditional love, opting instead for a picture of love that is dependent upon performance. He also believes that people lack only the capacity for two settings – law-abiding and non-law-abiding – failing to consider the many possibilities that could benefit the leader when love is the motivator rather than simple fear.
- Machiavelli, Niccolò. The prince. Vol. 36. PF Collier, 1910.
