Machiavelli argues that it is better for a ruler to be feared than loved because fear is a more stable foundation for power than love. He claims fear stems from a ruler's cruelty while love depends on that ruler's good qualities, which people are unlikely to see consistently. The document asks if one should agree with Machiavelli's view and whether a ruler should appear virtuous rather than truly be virtuous, before questioning if any modern politicians follow Machiavelli's advice and what kind of ruler the reader would be.

1. According to Machiavelli, is it better for a ruler to be loved or
feared? Why? What reasons does he give for this? What kind
of evidence does he give in support of his position? Is being
either loved or feared good merely for the ruler or also for
society?
Do you agree with Machiavelli in this? If not, then argue
against him. That is, provide an argument that explains why
he’s wrong and the opposite position is correct. If you do
agree with Machiavelli, then what’s so convincing about what
he says?
What about virtue? Should a ruler be virtuous or merely
appear to be? Can he be virtuous at all? What’s the purpose of
it? Do you agree with Machiavelli?
Can you think of any recent and/or living rulers or politicians
who follow Machiavelli’s advice? If they actually follow
Machiavelli’s advice, how would you know they are (scary,
eh?)
What kind of ruler would you be?