In this paper, I will argue against Machiavelli’s idea on how a ruler should govern a society by refuting claims he makes in The Prince, specifically about love and hate, while providing my own view on the idea of love on the basis of power.
Love and fear are emotions opposite of each other that bring out the best and worst qualities of a person. Machiavelli states that a ruler “ought to be both loved and feared” . However, he further explains that it is very difficult to be both of these things, therefore it is much safer to be feared than loved . According to Machiavelli being feared is the only way one can truly protect their country. Subjects will be frightened to go against the ruler if he is feared because they don’t want to be punished. A ruler’s power can easily be lost if he is loved because people can fall out of love making the people have the power. If he is feared, the power is put into his hands and not the peoples because a ruler can make someone fear him, but cannot make someone love him. He furthers this point by emphasizes that all men are innately wicked. They will be yours while you succeed and serve their interests, but will turn against you and not be faithful to you when you need their help. Also, he exclaims that “love attaches men by ties of obligation…which they (men) will break when their interests are at stake.” Machiavelli continues to define love as something very different then how society today would consider love to be.
While reading Machiavelli’s ideas on love, it is shown that his opinions on love don’t match up with how society views love today. Firstly, Machiavelli’s definition of love is incorrect according to society’s view on love today is based off of his idea of success. Love to Machiavelli depends of the failures and successes of a person. He thinks that if you fail, then the people won’t love you anymore. I argue that love, when regarding political leaders and rulers, is based off of the person’s personality and aims or proposals for the society. A ruler cannot fail or succeed at their personality or ideas for society. People are willing to adhere to their rulers because they trust their character or personality, not because of their successes. Secondly, Machiavelli emphasizes that love and obligation have a strong correlation. I argue that we don’t love our rulers because they are obligated to give us things, but because we agree with their stance on political issues and we trust they will stand to these beliefs and get them into action. Loving a ruler requires you to be passionate about the same policies that they believe in. Simply put, love isn’t based off of obligation but off of shared values and interests for the society. We can see that throughout his writing love seems to be closely tied to self-interest. If it doesn’t specifically help you or enhance your life then it cannot be love.
Based on my arguments above on what love is, it can be argued that it is better to be loved than feared.
