This is the place where we will post our thoughts about what we are discussing in class.
Friday, November 5, 2010
To Be Feared or Loved?
If you were to be the ruler of a principality, would you rather have your subjects fear you, or love you? You may not sit the fence on this, pick a side and explain your position.
Obviously I would want a little of both but since I have to choose one, I would definitely say that I would rather be loved than feared. I wouldn't want people to form their own little groups and come up with plans to like kill me or something. I would rather just have people love me and agree with everything I do/say than for them to hate me. I don't want people to be completely afraid of me and then not like talk to me or anything.
I would rather have my subjects love me rather than be feared by me. I think that it would probably be fun to be super intimidating for awhile and have everyone be scared of me. I also think I could get power faster because everyone would be scared of what would happen if I'd get mad. I'd be a huge threat, but I wouldn't want to be when I really think about it. I would rather have power because my subjects trust me or have respect towards me than to have the only reason that I do have power is because everyone is afraid that I'd blow them up or something. I would already have power because of the position I'm in, but I would want my subjects to like me when I would go out in public and not hide away. I think that I would be more successful too.
It's easy to say that we would all rather be loved then feared...because who wants to be feared? But at the same time, I don't mind being mean to the freshmen and I don't care if THEY fear me. So if I were a big bad ruler of whatever, I don't think I would care if the little people feared me. As long as my mom still loved me. :)
I would have my subjects love me because, if they loved me they would listen to me more and praise me. They would be willing to fight for me in times of need. Another thing why I would be loved is because if I was loved no one would want to kill me. Yet, being loved is one thing but also having the effect on them that they need to pay attention or follow the rules is good too. Like having a hard hand. I also would not like people saying that I was a terrible ruler cause I was feared by everyone. That is the reason why I would like to rather be loved than feared.
I would want to be both feared yet loved at the same time. Since I have to choose I would want to be feared rather than loved. Just because it is the safer way to go. If people are scared of you then it is less likely that they will take advantage of you. Yes, they might revolt but there will be some doubt but in overall they will probably be scared to do so. People in fear usually listen. If they don't they imagine the consequences the king would give. If I asked someone to do stuff they would not question me they would just do it. If I were loved they might have been like, "For what reason my fair king?" When I wanted something done my people would do it in fear. If they didn't it was probably be cause of a revolt. Then again if I was loved they would do it willingly instead of being forced to do anything.
I think to be a ruler it would be better to have your subjects love you then to fear you. What any ruler wants is to be able to be in power for as long as they want it, this is their main goal. For this to be accomplished I think it would be easier to be loved, that way the people that you rule over would respect you and your ideals and want to do what they are told. In contrast, if you were feared the people would only listen to you for fear of what you would do to them in return, which still might sound good,but then it would only be a matter of time until they rebelled. So ultimately I think it would be in the best interest of any ruler to be loved and respected but not allow this the relationship to become a weakness where the subjects start to think that they can get away with whatever they want, there still has to be some sort of guideline.
Jessica, I agree that it would be okay for people to fear me as long as my mom loves me. That was very well put :) good example with the freshman thing too even though I'm nice to them haha good job!
Diana, I liked what you said about how if people loved you then they would be willing to help you out in a time of need and would listen better. Good job!
Zulema, I really like the point that you made that there is still a line that has to be there so that the people can't think that they can just do whatever. I believe that if we were feared, that ya it would work for awhile, but eventually, something in your power would go totally wrong. And plus, who could be afraid of a face like yours! (:
Jessica, First of all you crack me up. You are probably one of the harshest people I know when you want to be. But, I know that you can be a very nice and caring young lady. Your tough front doesn't phase me little missy.
Deep-- I like your point of view, I agree and think that it would be better to be both feared and loved. But, I disagree and think that a well liked king you have the respect of his people and if he was loved the subjects would have a need to take advantage of him.
Diana-- I agree, being loved would eliminate ever having to worry about your people rebelling or wanting to overthrow you.
I think for a ruler to stay in power and to not get overthrown, it would be best for the ruler to be feared by his people. People wouldn't try to compromise with the ruler when they make a decision, they would take the orders and serve the ruler like they should. Also, I think that being feared shows other territories that their ruler is of strict order and that the ruler shouldn't be messed with. If the ruler is feared, it doesn't exactly mean he's hated. It means that he is harsh and expects lots of his people which would create a strong supportive group underneath him. I think it would be best to be feared because of the punishments that would come of disobedience so the power, privilege, and prestige would be the greatest to the king.
Deep--I agree with your comment. I think that your points supported what you thought very well. I agree that it would be best for the ruler to be feared so this people would not disobey him and would not try to overthrow him because they would know their punishments if they did.
Zulema- I understand your post, but I disagree because I think that the ruler should be feared so his people don't disobey him. It would be great to be loved by your people but this might take away from the authority you have.
"...if he does not win love, he avoids hatred; because he can endure very well being feared whilst he is not hated..." (Machiavelli, 76)
After reading chapter seventeen of 'The Prince' by Nicoolo Machiavelli, my opinion about the question above was, at the least, solidified. If I were to put myself in a ruling position, I would much rather be feared than loved. The quote that introduces my entry is implying that it is definitely possible for one to be feared but not hated. One who is loved, but not feared, automatically emits a weak appearance. This comes from the sense that if no one is concerned about their actions because their ruler doesn't enforce even remotely sever consequences, it would be impossible to maintain order, thus the ruler would most likely meet a downfall at one point or another. A ruler who can establish way to keep peace within his region and exhibit that he should be frightened is clearly better off. All he must do is be intelligent enough to allow a livable lifestyle for those under his control. The anxiety of being severely punished eliminates a significant amount of people who would dare to rebel; therefore, it is easier for a ruler to preserve a balanced and loyal society if he is feared.
If I was the ruler of a principality I would rather be feared then loved. If you are loved then people think that you will let them do anything that they want and they feel like you will befriend them, but if you are feared then people will do want you ask them to without saying anything. When you are feared then people do what you say and if you were loved then people would question you. It is just much easier to be feared. Also when you are feared then no one dares to go against you but when you are loved then people feel like they can say anything and they will give opinions without being asked. That can annoying sometimes because if I want someones opinion then I will ask for it. Also when you are feared then almost no one questions your actions. It is nice to be loved but then people wouldn't really treat you like you are in charge and there will be people that walk all over you so to be feared is the best thing to be.
I think that I would want to be feared other than loved, cause no one really wants to stand up to a King that they fear so much. Cause if you know that your subjects fear you, then you could manipulate them. Then none would even try to stand in your way, and if they did they would be killed for what they thought. So then you could keep your power and keep the nobles and others down in their place. Word would get around to other countries, on how I am ruling my subjects. To rule with an iron fist, taking control of the kingdom and making sure that all know my law and what my laws are. That’s how I would rule until I died or got over ruled.
Jessica- I agree, ha yea I like the idea to be feared and all. That you don’t mind that the freshmen fear you. As long as you got love form a few people such as your mom. Ha
Zulema- I think that being loved is good cause your subjects would love you back and not rebel or have any difficulty with your ruling. But, what if they think you’re too soft and not suited for the job. That anyone can rule over you cause every one wants power and wants the throne. I do think that if you ruled with some fear that you can keep them in line. That if one of your subjects does get some idea to over take you, you can counter that with more fear and power. And put their life on the line, so it could be an example to others that if they do get to close to the line. That their lives are at stake.
UGGGHHH! i would have to say both, but since i can only pick one, ill pick to be loved. I mean, yea i would LOVE to be feared and be known as the most super b.a ruler who will punish you if you dont do whats right. But that would just attract attention that you dont want. In this world, i just want people to look up to me and say, Sergio is a person who is loving and cares, so id pick id want to be loved. That way people would praise me and not have lots of arguments. And if eventually i was killed or something, at least i know i did what was right, and was kind to others.
Alex, Youd rather be feared??? Is that why you bully people? hahaha jk jk. Naw bt i knw wat youre saying, but i still have to say id rather be loved.
Sydney, I do see what youre saying in other territories would see that ruler as strict. I still would side on being loved, rather than feared.
If I really, really, really had to pick feared or loved, i would pick feared. Like its says in The Prince, its the safer way to go because if people love you, yes, they will be with you and offer their soul to you but of course, "when the need is far far away" but when the time comes it is easy for men to turn against you. "Men have less scruple in offending one who is beloved than one who is feared." They will hesitate less in leaving the one who is loved, but they will fear leaving the one who is feared. If the people would fear me that doesn't necessarily mean they would hate me. I could care less if they would fear me as long as they didn't hate me which, they wouldn't as long as I wouldn't mess with their property.
Well that would be a difficult choice indeed to decide but if a side must be chosen then the side with the most benefits and logic would be the side to go on. That side for me would have to be fear. This is because if I strike fear into every one of them then they would be more likely to follow my directions and not disobey unlike if you were loved then of course you would also have haters and be protrayed as a soft king which is not what anybody would like to be seen as. Also the hate would be my sign of trying to protect the people and only those who would actually realize this would not hate me at all. On the contrary they would adore me.
Sergio, Hey I understand that you want to be loved and I respect that because you would be doing the right thing that must be done. One problem that you can see occur from this is the fact that you may be doing the right thing but what about everybody else. You can't always trust in everybody because some others will turn on you.
Alex, I have to agree with you on ruling with an iron fist. Not only will you get your way and your subjects will fear you but also your reputation will no doubt be sent through the lands marking your name into the country as a powerful ruler in time.
Diana - Ideally it would be nice if a leader could get everyone of their subjects to love and obey them. but in reality, it's just not possible. No matter who you are, what you do, or what country, state, city, etc. that you are in charge of, there's going to be somebody who won't love you. Look at our own country, for example. There are some people who really, really love Obama, but at the same time, there are a lot of people that really, really hate him. So I would say that it would be pretty arrogant to assume that you would be able to get all your subjects to love you. (:
Olivia - I like how no one else has commented on your's yet because of it's high intellectual content... haha. Well I agree with what you say. Fear and hatred are not synonyms, unlike everyone seems to believe. By instilling fear in your subjects, you are maintaining some sense of order. Just like principals...people who break the rules usually hate them, although not all of us do, but at the same time, we all have some level of fear when randomly appear on our classroom. Good job. (:
As mostly everyone said above me, it would be better to be both feared and loved. However, if I had to pick one, I would rather be feared than loved. People may not necessarily like me, but if they fear me they would be more likely to follow my orders and less likely to revolt. They would be afraid to go against my word because of the punishments that would follow. Being loved would result in people taking advantage of you. They would not be under that sense of control that comes with fear.
My first instinct answer for this question is to say that I would want my subjects to both love and fear me, but since I can't choose that option, I will say that I would much rather have my subjects fear me than love me. By having subjects fear me I feel like I am establishing a sense of control over them thus a higher chance of them listening to my orders and following them. Rebellions and/or revolts are possible, sometimes inevitable but that is a risk that some kings and rulers have to take. Like some people have said, being loved can result in people taking advantage of you or even not following your orders at all.
Like most people here, and everyone else, the best way to rule is to be loved and at the same time feared. But since I can only chose one or the other, I will say that feared is the way to go. When loved, you have the appearance of being weak and the chances of being overthrown are more likely to happen. When feared, even though hated, the chances of people rebelling is not likely since people will be afraid of the consequences. Those who favored being loved, there is nothing wrong with that choice, except that the chances of you being the ruler will probably end sooner then those who are feared.
Hugo: I agree hugo, when feared, most people will take that as having a powerful ruler, then having a ruler who is soft.
Zulema: Zulema, I must disagree, for a ruler to rule the longest, I believe that he/she must be feared. When loved by your people, this "relationships" are easy to break, and the chances of people seeing you weak are high. So really being feared would be safer if you want to rule for a longer period of time.
Stefani, I completely agree with your post. To add to your thoughts of revolts, yes it is possible, but think about how frightened most would be to do such a thing. Also, if a ruler was smart enough, he/she probably wouldn't even have to be worried about that if they were doing their job right because although he/she might be feared, it doesn't always mean he/she is utterly disliked.
Zulema, Although your post is ideal, this is not always an ideal world. What person doesn't want more power? Think about people in other high positions in society. If they had the chance, do you honestly think they would refrain to surpass anyone above them if they had the chance? One who is loved but not feared is in significantly more danger to try to be weakened. If no one is afraid of what the consequences they would meet if they tried to oppose this 'loved' ruler, what's going to stop them? A loved ruler is only loved by his/her subjects when conditions are at their best. Say things begin to take a turn for the worst, how do you know people will continue to 'love' their ruler? Any ruler is obviously supposed to be able to maintain some type of authority; however, it is not likely that order will be restored by a ruler who simply sticks to "...some sort of guideline."
Franklin - I agree with your post. If I could I would choose to be loved yet feared. Although I think the chances of being overthrown are present everywhere regardless of whether a ruler is loved or feared. Also, I don't always think that hatred comes with fear, it can, but not always. Good post.
Diana - I have to say that I disagree with your post, but you have your opinions and I have mine. I think that even if you were feared by your subjects they would listen to you and praise you; maybe even more than if you were loved by them. I don't necessarily think that because you'd be feared people would make you out to be a bad ruler and person. For example, think of someone who you're afraid of or fear. Do you really think they're a bad person in general, or is it because you fear them that you think they're a bad person (hope that makes sense. Sounded better in my head). Also, if your subjects feared you enough they wouldn't kill you. Good post.
I would rather be feared than loved. When your loved you can't really taken serious. People will not know their place and because of that there is no order. If you were to be feared than you have the assurance that they know their place and are too much of cowards to actually dare challenge you. You have order over your people and because they fear you they won't challenge you.
Stefani- You have an excellent point there. If you have them love you then the chances are that they'll take advantage over you. If they fear you it's because of a reason. Like let's say they fear you because you don't show mercy. Then they won't want to take the risk of rebelling and failing.
Franklin- Showing weakness is the greatest downfall it's like what is that called I think it's Archilles heel.
Well, for starters I think that is impossible to be on the fence about this topic. Personally I think that it would be best to be loved. When the people you rule love you, you don’t have the worry that they will rebel and try to take your power away from you. A lot of people have said that if you are loved then you are not taken seriously. To be quite honest, I think that is ridiculous. One can be loved and still have strength and dominance. Some leaders are loved because of their kindness others are loved And respected because of there leadership. People tend to react violently to anything that they fear. Yes, when people fear you it is much easier to impose your wishes but, at what cost? Would anyone really like to feel that alone?
Stefani- Although I do not agree with your point of view I respect your points. Yes, it would make it easier to rule. Yet, love also means respect. If your subjects respect you then they will follow your rules. Good.
Franklin- When people fear you they attempt to overthrow and rebel because fear tells them that if they don’t the consequences will be direr than if they live in fear. Yet, people are unpredictable. Very easy to follow and well written though.
I would rather be loved than feared. Sure being feared would be nice and all, not having to worry about revolts and having peace, but I would definitely feel lonely. Due to a fear induced aura about my person, people would obey me but not do it willingly. Everything I ask would get done, but with the wrong attitude from my subjects. This would lead to me being a lonely person, because who wants to be friends with someone who can have you killed, your home taken away, or do anything to you if you speak or do something slightly out of line. I would rather be loved as a ruler, because I would achieve the same results as being feared, but everything would be more positive. Some would say that being loved portrays a sense of weakness. Perhaps a neighboring country would attack me because they think I'm weak. This could happen, but then again I'd still have the unwavering support of my subjects who'd defend me willingly, not under a forced hand. One of the points I'm trying to make is that people will more willingly and happily do a task out of love, rather than through fear of what will happen if they don't.
Katherine-- you managed to say perfectly what I feel. When one is loved, it does not mean they are weak. They can be loved because of their attributes, such as strength or wisdom. Richard the Lion Hearted won the love of his people through his courage, thus the name. I'm pretty sure others didn't consider him weak.
Franklin-- If you are loved by a people, why would they overthrow you? It doesn't make sense that a group of people who are happy with their leader would decide to overthrow him/her. And why would being loved make them weak? Are you trying to say that being a lovable person is a bad thing? Think of Coach, and how much we all love him. Do you consider him weak because others love him? How does the love OTHERS have for one person prove that same person's capability to lead?
Zulema- I agree with you that if they were loved then the people would listen to them because they agree with the ideas the kings have. Also the respect that people have is another positive thing about being loved.
Madi- I agree with you that you want your people to trust you and they feel that they are in good hands. I agree with your post completely.
Carlos- I also would rather be feared than loved. When you are loved people can take you serious for a while then they won't take you serious anymore. I think there might be some order but just not very much. I agree you would have order over your people. Good Job.
Stefani-I would also want to be both. But since we have to choose I agree being feared is the better and safer way to go. Yes it would definitely establish a sense of control. I think there would definitely be rebellions if one was loved. Just because there would be some people who still don't love the Royalty or just want power. Good choice.
Katherine, Today, in the United States, our President is our leader. However, if you compare a president to a king, or our Government to a monarchy, there are several differences. For example, there are multiple people as opposed to one individual that get to decide on laws and so on. Therefore, we must look at the 'leaders' as a whole and allow that 'whole' to represent a ruler. The United States like any other country, contains people who disagree with the way things are run. It possess individuals who crave to be at a higher position in society they are. However, how often do you hear about our government being threatened? Do we ever hear about people trying to overthrow our leaders? No. You may be asking yourself what does this have to do with the question, "would you rather be feared than loved?" Well it has everything to do with it. Our government isn't being bothered because it has long possessed severe consequences for equally severe crimes. Most people are *afraid* of what would happen to them if they tried to disrupt peace in our government. Very few people would ever attempt something so extreme as to harm or surpass our leaders because they are *fearful* of what would happen to them. Does this mean that the entire country hates our leaders solely because they enforce consequences to those who do wrong? Absolutely not. It also does not mean that our leaders aren't respected.
For all of you who would rather be loved than feared, Yes, we were told we are not to stand on the fence of the question; we were instructed to choose one or the other. Analyze this very simple statement. It is very much possible to be feared, but not hated. Ask yourselves this question one more time, and decide if you really do not want people to be concerned about what would happen to them if they committed any sort of crime, whether that be stealing an eraser or trying to conquer you.
I would rather be loved than feared. To me, it seems like love is a more lasting bond than fear. If the prince were in a position of need, and for some reason had to rely on his people for it, I think if they loved him they would be much more willing to give it to him. If they feared him, it would be the perfect chance to strike back and revolt against him. It is also a lot more pleasant to deal with on a daily basis. I would rather have people saying hi to me everyone I went than have them not coming near me at all. People are much more willing to do acts of assistance out of love rather than fear.
I would rather be loved than feared. If we look at history, we can see that even thought those who were feared obtained a lot of power, they went downhill in some way. Being loved by your subjects is better because they still have that respect for you and believe that you will take good care of them. If you are feared by them, there is no trust and the kingdom will eventually get nowhere if some of them choose to rebel. There will still be some problems even when you are loved, but I still think it would be much better to be loved rather than feared.
Katherine - I totally agree with you. I think it would be easy for a ruler to be loved, and still maintain the respect and dominancy over his subjects. It seems a lot easier to not have to worry about being overthrown by your own people.
Kevin- I agree with you. Even if another country believed you were weak, obviously you'd have your entire country to back you up because they'd care about you and the fate of their land.
Kelli- I love that you said how love is a stronger bond than fear. This is true. I totally agree with you. Yay u! Go Keyli/Kelli!!! :)
Olivia- I disagree with you because I would not want to be feared rather than loved. You said that it shows weakness and that the kingdom will eventually have a downfall. I have to disagree with that because when you are loved, more people are willing to do what you say and everything is a lot more peachy (haha).
If I were to rule a country, I would prefer to rule with fear. I believe that ruling with fear would be more effective in multiple ways. First, ruling with fear would force commitment upon the soldiers and servants, therefore they would be more afraid of their own ruler than the enemy. This would harden the men in battle, and allow them to fight more courageously. Second, when ruling with fear, you would seem like a much more powerful enemy. Your enemy would be afraid of your cruelty. The main problem with ruling with fear would be that if you ever showed signs of weakness, almost everybody would be willing to take you out of power.
Olivia - Thanks for writing a book. You make good points but, if fear is so great than why is there so many wars in America's history? Unfortunately, we are currently in one. Our government system works in a way that the leaders try to please the people. Which is completely different from what Machiavelli wrote.
Carlos, I agree in that when there is fear, there is a better sense of order. People are scared of what would happen if they were to disobey orders or challenge whoever is in charge.
Zulema, People would still respect someone's ideals if they were feared rather than loved. Whether or not a people respect a ruler's ideals doesn't have to do with being loved or feared, it has to do with how they use the people's perception of themselves. When rulers are loved, the people around them start to become comfortable around them. This comfortability leads to a sort of unprofessional bond which can then lead to the subjects adding in their own ideas without being asked and results in the walking-over of the ruler by his subjects. It is nearly impossible to create a guideline set by the ruler for the subjects to follow that will last for a long time; eventually it all begins to fall apart.
I think it would be better to be feared rather than loved. You can control the people's fear, but you can't control their love. Like Teresita stated above if I need someone's opinion I'll just ask for it. Being loved would give anyone the chance to give me their opinion. While if I was feared they would be scared of my reaction and would only speak when asked to do so. Also I would seem more powerful being feared. The people would be scared to try and take charge of any sort. For the most they would listen for fear of any consequences while being loved they wouldn't mind because you'd seem "soft" and not capable of punishing.
Jessica, I like how you stated that. Who does want to be feared? But if your feared its easier for them to follow you and listen. Yes as long as my mom still loved me too. :)
Diana, They can always stop loving you. Maybe they would listen and praise you but what about when it came down to save themselves or saving you? It'd be more likely for them to save themselves even if they love you. When your feared they will try and save you for fear of you getting rid of them.
Obviously I would want a little of both but since I have to choose one, I would definitely say that I would rather be loved than feared. I wouldn't want people to form their own little groups and come up with plans to like kill me or something. I would rather just have people love me and agree with everything I do/say than for them to hate me. I don't want people to be completely afraid of me and then not like talk to me or anything.
ReplyDeleteI would rather have my subjects love me rather than be feared by me. I think that it would probably be fun to be super intimidating for awhile and have everyone be scared of me. I also think I could get power faster because everyone would be scared of what would happen if I'd get mad. I'd be a huge threat, but I wouldn't want to be when I really think about it. I would rather have power because my subjects trust me or have respect towards me than to have the only reason that I do have power is because everyone is afraid that I'd blow them up or something. I would already have power because of the position I'm in, but I would want my subjects to like me when I would go out in public and not hide away. I think that I would be more successful too.
ReplyDeleteIt's easy to say that we would all rather be loved then feared...because who wants to be feared? But at the same time, I don't mind being mean to the freshmen and I don't care if THEY fear me. So if I were a big bad ruler of whatever, I don't think I would care if the little people feared me. As long as my mom still loved me. :)
ReplyDeleteI would have my subjects love me because, if they loved me they would listen to me more and praise me. They would be willing to fight for me in times of need. Another thing why I would be loved is because if I was loved no one would want to kill me. Yet, being loved is one thing but also having the effect on them that they need to pay attention or follow the rules is good too. Like having a hard hand. I also would not like people saying that I was a terrible ruler cause I was feared by everyone. That is the reason why I would like to rather be loved than feared.
ReplyDeleteI would want to be both feared yet loved at the same time. Since I have to choose I would want to be feared rather than loved. Just because it is the safer way to go. If people are scared of you then it is less likely that they will take advantage of you. Yes, they might revolt but there will be some doubt but in overall they will probably be scared to do so. People in fear usually listen. If they don't they imagine the consequences the king would give. If I asked someone to do stuff they would not question me they would just do it. If I were loved they might have been like, "For what reason my fair king?" When I wanted something done my people would do it in fear. If they didn't it was probably be cause of a revolt. Then again if I was loved they would do it willingly instead of being forced to do anything.
ReplyDeleteI think to be a ruler it would be better to have your subjects love you then to fear you. What any ruler wants is to be able to be in power for as long as they want it, this is their main goal. For this to be accomplished I think it would be easier to be loved, that way the people that you rule over would respect you and your ideals and want to do what they are told. In contrast, if you were feared the people would only listen to you for fear of what you would do to them in return, which still might sound good,but then it would only be a matter of time until they rebelled. So ultimately I think it would be in the best interest of any ruler to be loved and respected but not allow this the relationship to become a weakness where the subjects start to think that they can get away with whatever they want, there still has to be some sort of guideline.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJessica,
ReplyDeleteI agree that it would be okay for people to fear me as long as my mom loves me. That was very well put :) good example with the freshman thing too even though I'm nice to them haha good job!
Diana,
I liked what you said about how if people loved you then they would be willing to help you out in a time of need and would listen better. Good job!
Zulema,
ReplyDeleteI really like the point that you made that there is still a line that has to be there so that the people can't think that they can just do whatever. I believe that if we were feared, that ya it would work for awhile, but eventually, something in your power would go totally wrong. And plus, who could be afraid of a face like yours! (:
Jessica,
First of all you crack me up. You are probably one of the harshest people I know when you want to be. But, I know that you can be a very nice and caring young lady. Your tough front doesn't phase me little missy.
Deep-- I like your point of view, I agree and think that it would be better to be both feared and loved. But, I disagree and think that a well liked king you have the respect of his people and if he was loved the subjects would have a need to take advantage of him.
ReplyDeleteDiana-- I agree, being loved would eliminate ever having to worry about your people rebelling or wanting to overthrow you.
I think for a ruler to stay in power and to not get overthrown, it would be best for the ruler to be feared by his people. People wouldn't try to compromise with the ruler when they make a decision, they would take the orders and serve the ruler like they should. Also, I think that being feared shows other territories that their ruler is of strict order and that the ruler shouldn't be messed with. If the ruler is feared, it doesn't exactly mean he's hated. It means that he is harsh and expects lots of his people which would create a strong supportive group underneath him. I think it would be best to be feared because of the punishments that would come of disobedience so the power, privilege, and prestige would be the greatest to the king.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDeep--I agree with your comment. I think that your points supported what you thought very well. I agree that it would be best for the ruler to be feared so this people would not disobey him and would not try to overthrow him because they would know their punishments if they did.
ReplyDeleteZulema- I understand your post, but I disagree because I think that the ruler should be feared so his people don't disobey him. It would be great to be loved by your people but this might take away from the authority you have.
"...if he does not win love, he avoids hatred; because he can endure very well being feared whilst he is not hated..." (Machiavelli, 76)
ReplyDeleteAfter reading chapter seventeen of 'The Prince' by Nicoolo Machiavelli, my opinion about the question above was, at the least, solidified. If I were to put myself in a ruling position, I would much rather be feared than loved. The quote that introduces my entry is implying that it is definitely possible for one to be feared but not hated. One who is loved, but not feared, automatically emits a weak appearance. This comes from the sense that if no one is concerned about their actions because their ruler doesn't enforce even remotely sever consequences, it would be impossible to maintain order, thus the ruler would most likely meet a downfall at one point or another. A ruler who can establish way to keep peace within his region and exhibit that he should be frightened is clearly better off. All he must do is be intelligent enough to allow a livable lifestyle for those under his control. The anxiety of being severely punished eliminates a significant amount of people who would dare to rebel; therefore, it is easier for a ruler to preserve a balanced and loyal society if he is feared.
Madi
ReplyDelete- i love you a little...sometimes... :/
If I was the ruler of a principality I would rather be feared then loved. If you are loved then people think that you will let them do anything that they want and they feel like you will befriend them, but if you are feared then people will do want you ask them to without saying anything. When you are feared then people do what you say and if you were loved then people would question you. It is just much easier to be feared. Also when you are feared then no one dares to go against you but when you are loved then people feel like they can say anything and they will give opinions without being asked. That can annoying sometimes because if I want someones opinion then I will ask for it. Also when you are feared then almost no one questions your actions. It is nice to be loved but then people wouldn't really treat you like you are in charge and there will be people that walk all over you so to be feared is the best thing to be.
ReplyDeleteI think that I would want to be feared other than loved, cause no one really wants to stand up to a King that they fear so much. Cause if you know that your subjects fear you, then you could manipulate them. Then none would even try to stand in your way, and if they did they would be killed for what they thought. So then you could keep your power and keep the nobles and others down in their place. Word would get around to other countries, on how I am ruling my subjects. To rule with an iron fist, taking control of the kingdom and making sure that all know my law and what my laws are. That’s how I would rule until I died or got over ruled.
ReplyDeleteJessica-
ReplyDeleteI agree, ha yea I like the idea to be feared and all. That you don’t mind that the freshmen fear you. As long as you got love form a few people such as your mom. Ha
Zulema-
I think that being loved is good cause your subjects would love you back and not rebel or have any difficulty with your ruling. But, what if they think you’re too soft and not suited for the job. That anyone can rule over you cause every one wants power and wants the throne. I do think that if you ruled with some fear that you can keep them in line. That if one of your subjects does get some idea to over take you, you can counter that with more fear and power. And put their life on the line, so it could be an example to others that if they do get to close to the line. That their lives are at stake.
UGGGHHH! i would have to say both, but since i can only pick one, ill pick to be loved. I mean, yea i would LOVE to be feared and be known as the most super b.a ruler who will punish you if you dont do whats right. But that would just attract attention that you dont want. In this world, i just want people to look up to me and say, Sergio is a person who is loving and cares, so id pick id want to be loved. That way people would praise me and not have lots of arguments. And if eventually i was killed or something, at least i know i did what was right, and was kind to others.
ReplyDeleteAlex,
Youd rather be feared??? Is that why you bully people? hahaha jk jk. Naw bt i knw wat youre saying, but i still have to say id rather be loved.
Sydney,
I do see what youre saying in other territories would see that ruler as strict. I still would side on being loved, rather than feared.
If I really, really, really had to pick feared or loved, i would pick feared. Like its says in The Prince, its the safer way to go because if people love you, yes, they will be with you and offer their soul to you but of course, "when the need is far far away" but when the time comes it is easy for men to turn against you. "Men have less scruple in offending one who is beloved than one who is feared." They will hesitate less in leaving the one who is loved, but they will fear leaving the one who is feared. If the people would fear me that doesn't necessarily mean they would hate me. I could care less if they would fear me as long as they didn't hate me which, they wouldn't as long as I wouldn't mess with their property.
ReplyDeleteAll who would rather be loved,
ReplyDeletegood luck with your kingdom when you are in trouble...unless all your people put you before them, which i doubt.
Well that would be a difficult choice indeed to decide but if a side must be chosen then the side with the most benefits and logic would be the side to go on. That side for me would have to be fear. This is because if I strike fear into every one of them then they would be more likely to follow my directions and not disobey unlike if you were loved then of course you would also have haters and be protrayed as a soft king which is not what anybody would like to be seen as. Also the hate would be my sign of trying to protect the people and only those who would actually realize this would not hate me at all. On the contrary they would adore me.
ReplyDeleteSergio,
ReplyDeleteHey I understand that you want to be loved and I respect that because you would be doing the right thing that must be done. One problem that you can see occur from this is the fact that you may be doing the right thing but what about everybody else. You can't always trust in everybody because some others will turn on you.
Alex,
I have to agree with you on ruling with an iron fist. Not only will you get your way and your subjects will fear you but also your reputation will no doubt be sent through the lands marking your name into the country as a powerful ruler in time.
Diana
ReplyDelete- Ideally it would be nice if a leader could get everyone of their subjects to love and obey them. but in reality, it's just not possible. No matter who you are, what you do, or what country, state, city, etc. that you are in charge of, there's going to be somebody who won't love you. Look at our own country, for example. There are some people who really, really love Obama, but at the same time, there are a lot of people that really, really hate him. So I would say that it would be pretty arrogant to assume that you would be able to get all your subjects to love you. (:
Olivia
- I like how no one else has commented on your's yet because of it's high intellectual content... haha. Well I agree with what you say. Fear and hatred are not synonyms, unlike everyone seems to believe. By instilling fear in your subjects, you are maintaining some sense of order. Just like principals...people who break the rules usually hate them, although not all of us do, but at the same time, we all have some level of fear when randomly appear on our classroom. Good job. (:
As mostly everyone said above me, it would be better to be both feared and loved. However, if I had to pick one, I would rather be feared than loved. People may not necessarily like me, but if they fear me they would be more likely to follow my orders and less likely to revolt. They would be afraid to go against my word because of the punishments that would follow. Being loved would result in people taking advantage of you. They would not be under that sense of control that comes with fear.
ReplyDeleteMy first instinct answer for this question is to say that I would want my subjects to both love and fear me, but since I can't choose that option, I will say that I would much rather have my subjects fear me than love me. By having subjects fear me I feel like I am establishing a sense of control over them thus a higher chance of them listening to my orders and following them. Rebellions and/or revolts are possible, sometimes inevitable but that is a risk that some kings and rulers have to take. Like some people have said, being loved can result in people taking advantage of you or even not following your orders at all.
ReplyDeleteLike most people here, and everyone else, the best way to rule is to be loved and at the same time feared. But since I can only chose one or the other, I will say that feared is the way to go. When loved, you have the appearance of being weak and the chances of being overthrown are more likely to happen. When feared, even though hated, the chances of people rebelling is not likely since people will be afraid of the consequences. Those who favored being loved, there is nothing wrong with that choice, except that the chances of you being the ruler will probably end sooner then those who are feared.
ReplyDeleteHugo: I agree hugo, when feared, most people will take that as having a powerful ruler, then having a ruler who is soft.
ReplyDeleteZulema: Zulema, I must disagree, for a ruler to rule the longest, I believe that he/she must be feared. When loved by your people, this "relationships" are easy to break, and the chances of people seeing you weak are high. So really being feared would be safer if you want to rule for a longer period of time.
Stefani, I completely agree with your post. To add to your thoughts of revolts, yes it is possible, but think about how frightened most would be to do such a thing. Also, if a ruler was smart enough, he/she probably wouldn't even have to be worried about that if they were doing their job right because although he/she might be feared, it doesn't always mean he/she is utterly disliked.
ReplyDeleteZulema,
Although your post is ideal, this is not always an ideal world. What person doesn't want more power? Think about people in other high positions in society. If they had the chance, do you honestly think they would refrain to surpass anyone above them if they had the chance? One who is loved but not feared is in significantly more danger to try to be weakened. If no one is afraid of what the consequences they would meet if they tried to oppose this 'loved' ruler, what's going to stop them? A loved ruler is only loved by his/her subjects when conditions are at their best. Say things begin to take a turn for the worst, how do you know people will continue to 'love' their ruler? Any ruler is obviously supposed to be able to maintain some type of authority; however, it is not likely that order will be restored by a ruler who simply sticks to "...some sort of guideline."
Love you Zuey :)
Franklin - I agree with your post. If I could I would choose to be loved yet feared. Although I think the chances of being overthrown are present everywhere regardless of whether a ruler is loved or feared. Also, I don't always think that hatred comes with fear, it can, but not always. Good post.
ReplyDeleteDiana - I have to say that I disagree with your post, but you have your opinions and I have mine. I think that even if you were feared by your subjects they would listen to you and praise you; maybe even more than if you were loved by them. I don't necessarily think that because you'd be feared people would make you out to be a bad ruler and person. For example, think of someone who you're afraid of or fear. Do you really think they're a bad person in general, or is it because you fear them that you think they're a bad person (hope that makes sense. Sounded better in my head). Also, if your subjects feared you enough they wouldn't kill you. Good post.
I would rather be feared than loved. When your loved you can't really taken serious. People will not know their place and because of that there is no order. If you were to be feared than you have the assurance that they know their place and are too much of cowards to actually dare challenge you. You have order over your people and because they fear you they won't challenge you.
ReplyDeleteStefani- You have an excellent point there. If you have them love you then the chances are that they'll take advantage over you. If they fear you it's because of a reason. Like let's say they fear you because you don't show mercy. Then they won't want to take the risk of rebelling and failing.
ReplyDeleteFranklin- Showing weakness is the greatest downfall it's like what is that called I think it's Archilles heel.
Well, for starters I think that is impossible to be on the fence about this topic. Personally I think that it would be best to be loved. When the people you rule love you, you don’t have the worry that they will rebel and try to take your power away from you. A lot of people have said that if you are loved then you are not taken seriously. To be quite honest, I think that is ridiculous. One can be loved and still have strength and dominance. Some leaders are loved because of their kindness others are loved And respected because of there leadership. People tend to react violently to anything that they fear. Yes, when people fear you it is much easier to impose your wishes but, at what cost? Would anyone really like to feel that alone?
ReplyDeleteStefani- Although I do not agree with your point of view I respect your points. Yes, it would make it easier to rule. Yet, love also means respect. If your subjects respect you then they will follow your rules. Good.
ReplyDeleteFranklin- When people fear you they attempt to overthrow and rebel because fear tells them that if they don’t the consequences will be direr than if they live in fear. Yet, people are unpredictable. Very easy to follow and well written though.
I would rather be loved than feared. Sure being feared would be nice and all, not having to worry about revolts and having peace, but I would definitely feel lonely. Due to a fear induced aura about my person, people would obey me but not do it willingly. Everything I ask would get done, but with the wrong attitude from my subjects. This would lead to me being a lonely person, because who wants to be friends with someone who can have you killed, your home taken away, or do anything to you if you speak or do something slightly out of line. I would rather be loved as a ruler, because I would achieve the same results as being feared, but everything would be more positive. Some would say that being loved portrays a sense of weakness. Perhaps a neighboring country would attack me because they think I'm weak. This could happen, but then again I'd still have the unwavering support of my subjects who'd defend me willingly, not under a forced hand. One of the points I'm trying to make is that people will more willingly and happily do a task out of love, rather than through fear of what will happen if they don't.
ReplyDeleteKatherine-- you managed to say perfectly what I feel. When one is loved, it does not mean they are weak. They can be loved because of their attributes, such as strength or wisdom. Richard the Lion Hearted won the love of his people through his courage, thus the name. I'm pretty sure others didn't consider him weak.
ReplyDeleteFranklin-- If you are loved by a people, why would they overthrow you? It doesn't make sense that a group of people who are happy with their leader would decide to overthrow him/her. And why would being loved make them weak? Are you trying to say that being a lovable person is a bad thing? Think of Coach, and how much we all love him. Do you consider him weak because others love him? How does the love OTHERS have for one person prove that same person's capability to lead?
Zulema-
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that if they were loved then the people would listen to them because they agree with the ideas the kings have. Also the respect that people have is another positive thing about being loved.
Madi-
I agree with you that you want your people to trust you and they feel that they are in good hands. I agree with your post completely.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCarlos- I also would rather be feared than loved. When you are loved people can take you serious for a while then they won't take you serious anymore. I think there might be some order but just not very much. I agree you would have order over your people. Good Job.
ReplyDeleteStefani-I would also want to be both. But since we have to choose I agree being feared is the better and safer way to go. Yes it would definitely establish a sense of control. I think there would definitely be rebellions if one was loved. Just because there would be some people who still don't love the Royalty or just want power. Good choice.
Katherine,
ReplyDeleteToday, in the United States, our President is our leader. However, if you compare a president to a king, or our Government to a monarchy, there are several differences. For example, there are multiple people as opposed to one individual that get to decide on laws and so on. Therefore, we must look at the 'leaders' as a whole and allow that 'whole' to represent a ruler. The United States like any other country, contains people who disagree with the way things are run. It possess individuals who crave to be at a higher position in society they are. However, how often do you hear about our government being threatened? Do we ever hear about people trying to overthrow our leaders? No. You may be asking yourself what does this have to do with the question, "would you rather be feared than loved?" Well it has everything to do with it. Our government isn't being bothered because it has long possessed severe consequences for equally severe crimes. Most people are *afraid* of what would happen to them if they tried to disrupt peace in our government. Very few people would ever attempt something so extreme as to harm or surpass our leaders because they are *fearful* of what would happen to them. Does this mean that the entire country hates our leaders solely because they enforce consequences to those who do wrong? Absolutely not. It also does not mean that our leaders aren't respected.
For all of you who would rather be loved than feared,
Yes, we were told we are not to stand on the fence of the question; we were instructed to choose one or the other. Analyze this very simple statement. It is very much possible to be feared, but not hated. Ask yourselves this question one more time, and decide if you really do not want people to be concerned about what would happen to them if they committed any sort of crime, whether that be stealing an eraser or trying to conquer you.
I would rather be loved than feared. To me, it seems like love is a more lasting bond than fear. If the prince were in a position of need, and for some reason had to rely on his people for it, I think if they loved him they would be much more willing to give it to him. If they feared him, it would be the perfect chance to strike back and revolt against him. It is also a lot more pleasant to deal with on a daily basis. I would rather have people saying hi to me everyone I went than have them not coming near me at all. People are much more willing to do acts of assistance out of love rather than fear.
ReplyDeleteI would rather be loved than feared. If we look at history, we can see that even thought those who were feared obtained a lot of power, they went downhill in some way. Being loved by your subjects is better because they still have that respect for you and believe that you will take good care of them. If you are feared by them, there is no trust and the kingdom will eventually get nowhere if some of them choose to rebel. There will still be some problems even when you are loved, but I still think it would be much better to be loved rather than feared.
ReplyDeleteKatherine - I totally agree with you. I think it would be easy for a ruler to be loved, and still maintain the respect and dominancy over his subjects. It seems a lot easier to not have to worry about being overthrown by your own people.
ReplyDeleteKevin- I agree with you. Even if another country believed you were weak, obviously you'd have your entire country to back you up because they'd care about you and the fate of their land.
Kelli- I love that you said how love is a stronger bond than fear. This is true. I totally agree with you. Yay u! Go Keyli/Kelli!!! :)
ReplyDeleteOlivia- I disagree with you because I would not want to be feared rather than loved. You said that it shows weakness and that the kingdom will eventually have a downfall. I have to disagree with that because when you are loved, more people are willing to do what you say and everything is a lot more peachy (haha).
Isabel: I totally agree with you. People are more likely to follow your orders if they fear you. Also it's just much easier that way. Great Job!
ReplyDeleteStefani (Pez): I also agree with you. Revolts will most likely be inevitable but thats just what you have to deal with. Awesome Job!
Deep,
ReplyDeleteI like how you explained your decision.
If I were to rule a country, I would prefer to rule with fear. I believe that ruling with fear would be more effective in multiple ways. First, ruling with fear would force commitment upon the soldiers and servants, therefore they would be more afraid of their own ruler than the enemy. This would harden the men in battle, and allow them to fight more courageously. Second, when ruling with fear, you would seem like a much more powerful enemy. Your enemy would be afraid of your cruelty. The main problem with ruling with fear would be that if you ever showed signs of weakness, almost everybody would be willing to take you out of power.
ReplyDeleteTeresita,
ReplyDeleteGood job.
Haha.
Olivia - Thanks for writing a book. You make good points but, if fear is so great than why is there so many wars in America's history? Unfortunately, we are currently in one. Our government system works in a way that the leaders try to please the people. Which is completely different from what Machiavelli wrote.
ReplyDeleteGood Book though ..:]
Carlos,
ReplyDeleteI agree in that when there is fear, there is a better sense of order. People are scared of what would happen if they were to disobey orders or challenge whoever is in charge.
Zulema,
People would still respect someone's ideals if they were feared rather than loved. Whether or not a people respect a ruler's ideals doesn't have to do with being loved or feared, it has to do with how they use the people's perception of themselves. When rulers are loved, the people around them start to become comfortable around them. This comfortability leads to a sort of unprofessional bond which can then lead to the subjects adding in their own ideas without being asked and results in the walking-over of the ruler by his subjects. It is nearly impossible to create a guideline set by the ruler for the subjects to follow that will last for a long time; eventually it all begins to fall apart.
I think it would be better to be feared rather than loved. You can control the people's fear, but you can't control their love. Like Teresita stated above if I need someone's opinion I'll just ask for it. Being loved would give anyone the chance to give me their opinion. While if I was feared they would be scared of my reaction and would only speak when asked to do so. Also I would seem more powerful being feared. The people would be scared to try and take charge of any sort. For the most they would listen for fear of any consequences while being loved they wouldn't mind because you'd seem "soft" and not capable of punishing.
ReplyDeleteJessica,
ReplyDeleteI like how you stated that. Who does want to be feared? But if your feared its easier for them to follow you and listen. Yes as long as my mom still loved me too. :)
Diana,
They can always stop loving you. Maybe they would listen and praise you but what about when it came down to save themselves or saving you? It'd be more likely for them to save themselves even if they love you. When your feared they will try and save you for fear of you getting rid of them.