Cruelty is unavoidable because without it a prince would not be able to take and hold power. For the same reason that Machiavelli says that it is better to be feared than loved, stability, it is better to take power using cruelty rather than kindness. Assuming that all people are out for their own benefit, then using kindness will only show weakness, something others can and will take advantage of, rather than strength. -Thomas N.
There are many degrees of cruelty on the spectrum and the extent to which someone is cruel could make it almost avoidable. Choosing appropriate reactions as a prince is more applicable to keeping power in my opinion. For example, killing someone for stealing a loaf of bread would be cruel, where as killing a murderer could seem more justified. It's the same act, yet the cruelty aspect of it is a variable. I do agree with your point though of self preservation and human's tendency to avoid weakness in situatons.
Thomas, you say, "without it a prince would not be able to take and hold power", but I still want to know why. I want more concrete reasons. Because people are self-interested and without respect for kindness? Can the threat of force not itself be sufficient to maintain power?
And as for degrees of cruelty, I wonder. Isn't cruelty an expression of force just beyond what is just? Would an expression of force considerably beyond proportion exceed even cruelty into the space of inhumanity?
Without the knowledge of the Italian and the context, these questions are perhaps idle, yet I do think conceptually we can circumscribe the "cruel."
In contrast to Thomas, I think it is very possible for a prince to take and maintain power without being cruel. For instance, if a prince comes to power and is respected for his admirable traits (such as honesty and loyalty), I feel as though his people would be more inclined to obey him. Often I think people lack respect and obedience for authoritative figures because they feel as though they are being treated wrongly. However, if a prince treats his people as they would wish to be treated, I do not think many people would have any reason to disobey him. In fact, I think the prince's people would be more inclined to try to please their ruler and make him proud. Ultimately the prince may have a much easier time maintaining power simply because he would have much less people interested in betraying him.
As to Kathleen's comment, I would love to agree. However, I only believe that would be the case in a perfect world. As a leader, it is impossible to make everyone happy. What is beneficial for someone may negatively affect someone else.
If we are using "cruelty" as a punishment that is beyond what is just..then i do think it is necessary. A ruler must make a point to prevent others from doing the same in the future. If the punishment is fairly deserved then people are more likely to take the risk compared to a more extreme punishment.
If we are using "cruelty" as inhuman actions... I believe that would be a different story.
Does a leader need to be respected in order to be effective, to maintain power? Not outside any system in which a leader is elected. Instead, he (merely needs not to be hated.
Example, although they are not in power, but they have certainly drawn attention to themselves: ISIS (not the spy agency in "Archer")..
I agree with Thomas on this one. Let's take North Korea, for example (not the best example of a "happy people,” [though here is something interesting to see: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1393478/North-Korea-rated-the-happiest-places-Earth-survey--North-Korea.html). When Kim Jong-Il died, people flocked to see the funeral and were physically disturbed by the happenings. Their actions were reminiscent of something like a family member mourning a lost relative: sobbing, over-the-top flailing, etc. This relates to cruelty for obvious reasons. Here is an article showing the realities of life in North Korea, as seen through the lens of an outsider: http://nypost.com/2014/01/11/life-inside-the-surreal-cruel-sheltered-north-korea/ Some points from this: People have rationed food, others starve without any other support, etc. It's basically a Big Brother state. Yet, as evidenced by the dramatic responses of the citizens to Kim Jong-Il's death, this is just how the people live in North Korea. Speaking of Big Brother, let's talk 1984. In this novel, people live under the densest iron fist regime ever. People aren't even allowed to think in ways contrary to the Big Brother regime. This results in a population of individuals who essentially do the biddings of the government. Those, like Winston, who go against the grain, are tortured and, for lack of a better term, brainwashed. Sounds just like North Korea. The dictators and ruling regimes are ridiculously cruel. However, it “keeps the people in line,” and discourages opposition. Regarding your last question, Prof Vaught, it sure doesn't seem like Kim Jong-Il was the best of men. Professor Kim Hyun Sik administered one of Kim Jong-Il’s oral final exams. He notes that “I wish I could argue that the shy and determined young man I first met that October day is the real person behind the cruel and mercurial dictator the rest of the world now knows him to be” (Sik, 47). It doesn’t seem like Jong-Il was initially a cruel person, but it looks like he may have had to become one in order to keep the reins on his country. –Akshay Patel
Akshay referenced many great contemporary issues and literature that sparked me to think about one of my favorite novels, Anthem, by Ayn Rand. It is similar to 1984 in that the society is a collectivist nation where everyone has their duty. If someone steps out of line, there is immediate punishment. Usually, the punishment is incredibly cruel and does not match the "crime," such as beatings and other physical abuse. In this society, cruelty is used as a way to instill fear in the citizens so they follow the regimented system. While this cruelty is an effective tool to brainwash most of its citizens, it does not imply that the citizens respect the leaders. Eventually, internal conflict and rebellion will fester (as seen in Anthem) because I believe that in order to have a sustaining reign, a leader must gain the respect of its citizens and those with whom he develops relationships. Although ISIS is currently very powerful and has accumulated a substantial following, they are detested by the majority of the world. This disgust and disrespect for this group will only lead to the destruction of the group's ephemeral power. Similarly with a prince, while fear tactics may work, they will not guarantee security for a long reign because unjustified cruelty only breeds anger and disrespect from its citizens and the rest of the world. If the prince is not maintaining strong relationships with other authority figures, they will not respect him and work against him to destroy his power. All in all, while cruelty may be a temporary fix to a solution, it is not a tool that will grant a leader the respect and loyalty necessary for a long lasting reign.
To add to the previous comment, cruelty is unavoidable and often favored if a prince uses it wisely. In order to not abuse his power, a prince must always make the punishment a person is receiving match the crime in order to justify the cruelty of the disciplining. This is necessary in order for the prince to avoid hate. If a prince can successfully avoid abhorrence from his kingdom, then his power will not be threatened. If his authority is not under attack, then according to the prince, the kingdom is in a state of peace and order. Ultimately, the goal behind the prince's use of cruelty is for his own self-preservation and to avoid upheaval in the kingdom. Similar to the prince, we are Machiavellian in the sense that it is our natural desire to seek self-preservation.
Unlike Machiavelli, most modern political authorities and government officials, with the exception of dictators and radical political groups, seek for their citizens to follow the laws based on respect and loyalty to their power as leaders. This is very different from Machiavelli, who relied on fear as a means to obtaining obedient followers. To reference a question posed in class, I do believe that respect and loyalty go hand in hand. A prince who rules through fear lacks loyalty among his followers. Although they may obey his rules, this does not imply that they support or feel allegiance towards his reign. They are simply obeying out of fear in order to avoid punishment. -Larissa M.
With regard to the 2nd question: I couldn’t help but think of the prince as God during our discussion about being feared vs. being loved. In the Old Testament, God can be described as extremely cruel (ei the flood, destroying cities). But in the New Testament, God sends Jesus to save sinners from damnation, which instills love in many believers. Additionally, fear of God is considered a virtue in Christian faith. However, many people would settle for loving God. I wonder if these points can be related back to The Prince to help us make sense of fear vs. love, whether one needs to be cruel to be feared, and if one can be cruel and still loved. -Meaghan F.
In response to Meaghan’s post, I find your observation interesting and overall regardless if God was deemed cruel or loving, in the end was he not still the one who holds the power? The one above us all? He was a cruel God though many of his actions were in response to disobedience and the evil that was occurring in the world. This argument can support the idea that was discussed in class about justification when being cruel in efforts for the “greater good” or for humanity. If the act in itself can be a justified punishment and not a cruel act out of hatred, then I support Machiavelli’s point that it is better to be hated than loved. –Janine R.
Do you mean feared rather than hated? I just want to clarify because we've obviously dissected the shit out of these words and concluded that they are different. With regard to God still holding power regardless of being feared or being loved, I kind of think that's the point I was, rather slowly, getting to. That's just the thing. God is this omnipotent, omniscient being. To suggest that any human prince could hold power using the same technique God does is disconserting. So does Machiavelli actually believe that a human could fulfill this ideal that he has described? -Meaghan F.
Cruelty and violence should be seperated. Being cruel in my opinion is use of excessive means. if you're looking for the greater good in a society, you're constantly looking at good actions and bad actions in an infinite flux. At any one point you could pause the situation and debate whether or not someone is being cruel. For example during war you may be cruel, but the reasoning behind war and the ultimate ending of war may not be cruel. The extent to which someone is cruel is debatable but some form of cruelty (psychological or physical sense) was typically needed in Machiavelli's perspective.
Adding to this point, I believe that one of the fundamental differences between cruelty and violence is the fact that violence is typically something physical, whereas cruelty is something that can assault the very fabrics of our beings. Violence includes things such as assault, breaking and entering, rape and even murder, all physical crimes, all causing damage, initially, on the outsides of our bodies. Cruelty can kill us on the inside without leaving so much as a scratch on our skins. Cruelty can mean just the absolute absence of any morale and decency, the complete disregard for another human being.
I think cruelty is excessive in relation to being feared because I don't think a prince will ever be respected if he is cruel. Although cruelty may often seem necessary in some extreme cases, I believe there are other actions a prince could take to punish someone for their wrong actions. For example, putting wrong-doers in prison for life is a harsh punishment but it is not cruel. Most people would not want to be locked in a cell for their entire life; therefore, the prince could still be feared. I think fear is probably necessary when ruling a large mass of people; however, in my opinion, cruelty is taking it to a different level in terms of fear. Ultimately, there will always be a need for reprimand but I believe cruelty itself will only result in a lack of respect and admiration for the prince in power.
Going off of Kathleen's point, I do believe that cruelty can sometimes be excessive but the prince must decide whether he wants to be loved or feared. If he wants respect, then he cannot be cruel but if he wants to continue to be prince he must not come across as weak. On the other hand, if the prince chooses to be feared than cruelty is the way to go but he must not go passed a certain point. A prince can only be cruel if the actions can be justified so that people now know what not to do, therefore providing the prince with power without him having to worry about rebellion. If he kills simply to kill, it will only be a matter of time before people rebel because, in that case, what do they have to lose? With him as a ruler they risk being killed anyway. So in all, I do believe being feared is the easier way to maintain power as long as the cruel acts are somehow justified because being loved can come off to many as being weak.
I agree with Kathleen's point that excessive cruelty will not result in success. I think that a prince can easily be feared by his people, without using cruelty as his only method. There is a large difference between a punishment, and a cruel punishment. It is necessary that a prince justly punishes a person for breaking the law, but, like Kathleen was saying, putting someone in prison for life is a much better idea than harshly killing them. This will instill fear in the people, without causing hatred or betrayal towards the prince.
Cruelty, I believe is unavoidable because humans have a natural tendency to live in harmony when there is a hierarchy created. I immediately thought of Hobbes' view on this topic. He believes that when all humans are created equal, we live in a perpetual state of fear of one another. To solve this issue of fear, there must be a cruel and all powerful leader who the common man can fear more than he fears his fellow citizens. I agree that we fear one another to a certain extent, so it is necessary for the ruler to be more cruel because this is how he gains his power. Although people may hate the idea of living under a cruel ruler, it is the only way that we can avoid complete chaos for humanity.
With regards to the previous comment, I would disagree with Hobbes' cynical view of human nature. Humans most certainly do not live in constant fear of one another. One may fear someone or something for a period of time, but this is temporary not permanent. Eventually the fear will subside and another emotion will take its place. For instance one may fear someone else for a period of time and then proceed to discover more about them and replace this feeling with a hatred or fondness towards them. Therefore, if a ruler were to come to power through his cruelty and on the basis of fear, his reign may not last. Eventually the citizens will replace their initial fear with some other feeling towards the ruler. If hatred replaces the fear, revolts will oftentimes unfold.
In response to Charlie's post, I see your point in that we replace the initial fear of one another with another emotion, but at the same time I think Hobbes' point has validity because he sees humans as equal "machines", so it is natural that we have the same appetite and desires. Although other emotions may exist along with the fear, the fear will always be there because all humans have similar ultimate goals- whether that is wealth, happiness, political power, or virtue, or perhaps these all fall under the category of happiness as we have discussed this week in class. We are all in the race to achieve the same thing, so there is bound to be competition in fear with this. Professor Vaught, Hobbes' point is more directly relating to forms of absolute monarchies because in this the citizens are supposed to fear the leader a tremendous amount more than they do their citizens. Although, I do think that "cruelty" is necessary because something must set apart the leader in the eyes of the citizens. The term cruelty is vague here, but my opinion of it is that it is a reasonable amount of punishment inflicted upon people who disobey the ruler and commit actions that hurt the condition of the state/country/etc. Cruelty by the leader is what sets examples to the people as to what they cannot do. It is similar to the parenting example from class because parents cannot be too easy going or too strict because both of these extremes will back fire, whereas the middle ground between these is what I equate with the "cruelty" a prince needs to exercise for stability.
Cruelty is never what makes people fear someone, it only opens the gateway for a lack of respect and rebellion from the citizens. Similar to how Kathleen feels about the topic, cruelty is the last resort for punishment. It's a tactic used by a Prince more often than not to send a message to his citizens but rarely is the message necessary or received by the masses because the majority already respect the Prince. Because there are naturally many more people who do respect the Prince than who don't, I believe cruel acts could only be detrimental and hurt his image causing him to lose respect rather than gain it from horrific deeds.
I believe that cruelty is excessive and should not be used to make your country or city fear you. Fear can do horrible things to people and can cause more pain and suffering then intended. The Prince would say that to get people to listen to you, there must be some sort of violent and cruel act that shows them were the power lies. However, I believe that having a smart ruler would be better. Someone who can think on their feet and not be dead set in their ways of ruling. They should be able to adapt to every situation and be open to others ideas that would help contribute to the well being of the entire city. I know these ideas are very modern, but I think the Prince could have implemented some of them. In the Prince's case, cruelty is what makes people fearful because you never know when it is going to break down and they are going to maybe die. It can also be the cause of rebellion and unrest between the people because they feel their lives are being run by a tyrant who can't control himself.
I strongly agree with Maisie here as she believes a smart ruler would be better. I believe that intellectual force is greater than physical force and can be used in multiple areas of ruling. A strategic ruler will over power a physical ruler by always thinking one step ahead. In Orange Is The New Black, there is a war between two women "mothers" in the prison who fight each other both mentally and physically. The physical woman, at first, proposes the most threat as she is of greater body weight. However, as the war continues, the strategic and intellectual prisoner eventually wins as she is always planning one step ahead. This intelligence really puts her at a greater advantage when everyone at first doubts her. Other prisoners also become allies with her believing that she will best protect them. Relating back to The Prince, more citizens will generally go to a smart prince out of loyalty instead of a forceful prince out of fear.
I believe that cruelty is unavoidable, but not necessary in all cases and aspects of life, as a cruel reign can result in protests, rebellions, and even fatal wars. For example, the country of the Philippines was under martial law for many years that was instituted through the cruel dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos. During his election, he strived to gain the love and support of the people by advocating against the Vietnam War and constantly reaffirming his opposition towards violence and war. However, during his first term as president, Marcos ruled with a cruel and betraying hand by still sending troops into the fray of the Vietnam War. In addition to embezzling billions of dollars from the Philippine people and redirecting U.S. aid for the people towards his own cabinet members, he ordered the assassination of the nation’s advocate and his main adversary, Benigno Aquino Jr. This assassination, along with his cruel acts as a dictator and the gradual loss of support from society, finally pushed the Filipino people to rebel against and overthrow Marcos’s regime.
A leader, prince, or president does not need to possess a cruel persona or enact cruel actions on the people in order to be listened, followed, and respected for he could also be rebelled against or even overthrown in government. I think that a prince should be both feared and loved to a certain extent in that although his people admire, respect, and follow him, they also know that his hand is fully able to rule and put everyone into their own places.
Regarding the second question, I think excessive cruelty is what makes someone feared. Take a college professor, for example. Hearing the dark tales my parents relay to me about their college professors in India really makes me appreciate my professors at Villanova much more. These professors would curse students out in front of the class, prohibit students from leaving (even for bathroom breaks), and would even hit students with rulers and rods if the students were out of line. This made the student-professor dynamic a strained relationship. Here is what makes this interesting: Professors are regarded with the highest regard among professions in India. They are seen as intellectually superior and almost demand a respect of sorts. At the professor-student level, they are harsh and, what we would consider as cruel. At the faculty level (my mom is a professor here, so she gets the same respect when she visits college abroad), they are not as pig-headed and mean. On the contrary, they are humble and sweet people. It wasn’t until recently I realized that they just demand respect in the classroom to maintain order. After all, if the class is disorderly and students don’t do their work when requested, how are they to learn? Students don’t dare to speak out of turn, yell out in class, or even look away from the board. It is a tactic which not only instills fear into the students, but it maintains order and civility. Another example of this is the Drill Instructor in Full Metal Jacket. He was overly cruel with Leonard Lawrence (Gomer Pyle), resorting to chocking him and even having the rest of the recruits do pushups around him as he ate a donut he wasn’t supposed to eat. The Instructor’s actions were for the benefit of the recruits. By being overly harsh, the Instructor maintained the façade of order (I say façade, because Lawrence does indeed kill the Instructor and himself at the end, possibly proving the point that people shouldn’t be excessively cruel, but enough to maintain order). -Akshay Patel
In reaction to third question, I believe that we are all Machiavellian in that we understand this topic of cruelty in relation to fear on so many different levels. After reading many of the comments above, I have concluded that though we all seem to have different notions of cruel actions and the nature of a truly “cruel” leader, we all can relate the idea to certain topics and examples such as wars, violence, and various punishments, etc. I therefore believe that our ability to rationalize cruelty and justify it in certain instances makes us all a bit Machiavellian, for we can all somehow wrap our minds around his theories regarding effective ruling, and though we may debate them, the concepts are not very foreign to us and it seems to be quite easy for us all to play “devil’s advocate” in this instance. Noting that we do have this (perhaps inherent) ability to understand and rationalize cruelty, I believe that we all do have an “ethical task” if we are even partially Machiavellian. This task is to always be aware of this side of ourselves and to think logically in situations where we are tempted to exercise cruelty and act purely in self preservation as (according to Machiavelli) so many of us do. Perhaps the more Machiavelli we read, the more we come to understand these slightly darker facets of our personalities and the better equipped we will become to suppress them when they are not necessary. -Lexi N
Lexi, I completely agree with your assertion of our duty regarding cruelty. After having read Machiavelli I think that identifying these sorts of cruel acts assists us in understanding our own desires to act in a cruel way. House of Cards for example gives a great glimpse into the cruel acts that can be associated in politics today. Although using cruelty to gain power seems to be unethical and undesirable, a vast number of people still utilize it. In this way it appears as if although we understand possible negative aspects of acting in this sort of manner, our natural inclination to act cruelly is still able to win sometimes. This is a somewhat frightening description of ourselves as it implies that no matter our discipline cruelty will manage to win at some point.
In today’s class we discussed if happiness is a divine gift and if fortune and faith play a role in one’s life in determining happiness. I found this to be very confusing because originally I believed that if happiness was a divine gift, not from the Gods, but someone superior then wouldn’t the giver want that individual to be happy eternally? I thought that if one were blessed to have the gift then they would be happy in life. However, as class progressed fate and fortune came into play. If fortune interrupted said gift of happiness then I believe it is up to that individual to see if they would make the best of it or crumble down. I believe that if that individual had the divine gift they would be able to overcome any trouble in their life. A horrible car accident would certainly put a damper on said happiness but if that individual were granted the divine gift they would be able to overcome the tragedy; at least in my opinion.
Oddly enough I disagree with you here Jacqueline, while fortune definitely plays a big role in how we determine our "happiness", everyone's life is filled with fortunate and unfortunate experiences, how are we to say that an individual granted the "divine gift" should overcome those misfortunes? It would seem to me that a hopeful individual could overcome anything as well. To me, a life filled with unceasing hope is much more beneficial than that of promise and guarantee. Hope carries us through the hard times and humbles us during the good times, whereas a gift neither prepares us nor gives us any control over our end goal, which in this case is "happiness".
To add to this, I do not think we are given happiness as a gift. Happiness is what drives us to do anything. We learn, start a career, have a family, and travel to be happy. So if we spend our entire lives working towards being happy, I wonder how it can be a gift. Happiness is more of something in the distance; it’s a goal. You can certainly be happy, but I agree with Aristotle that we have to wait until the end to determine if we lead a happy life. Therefore, I agree with Jonathan that hope is going to help people overcome unfortunate events more than a divine gift. And if they do overcome a tragedy, and later continue to live a happy, it will be up to debate whether or not they had happiness. Some will and some won’t but I don’t think anyone is destined to find it.
To add to the conversation I agree with the previous comments that happiness is not a given gift but rather something that is acquired through once we have reached a completed life. I agree with Aristotle in regards that happiness is largely dependent on the life of habituation of activity. Happiness is reached by learning and is something to be shared by others. Since happiness involves other people being that it is an activity of virtue, this must mean that we as humans have control over the end goal of happiness. Being that happiness is dependent on others as well, one can argue that if happiness were to be a predetermine gift, people will not necessarily perform virtuous acts to each the end goal of happiness; thus, providing no contribution to the happiness of those around them. -Janine R.
Going off of what we said in class yesterday, happiness can still be possible even when talking about a someone who has lost their entire family, job, and whose life is in shambles. It is assumed that before the death of his family and the loss of his job, this man was happy. He lived a comfortable, normal, happy life. And now that he lost everything that gave him happiness, it seems difficult to believe that he could ever possibly be happy again. But if he redefines the term "happiness," it can perhaps be achieved. Now, to him, happiness will not mean family or work, but rather it will mean being alive and maybe just the simpler things in life at the time- maybe he got a new house, made a new friend, or bought a new car. Of course, these things won't replace the happiness he had with his family but it will bring happiness to him in a different way that may fill his void at least for a short time. But he can never have that same happiness that he felt prior to the death of his family.
I agree with Catherine's point. I think that it is possible for someone to be happy after they have experienced a tragedy in their life, although at the time of the tragedy they most likely weren't happy. I believe that a person who has experienced hardships and tragedies may be more appreciative of the good things in their life, and really understand what it means to be happy. Someone who has never experienced anything bad probably won't appreciate happiness as much as the person who overcame their struggles.
To answer the second question, I think cruelty is excessive in regards to being feared. For example, I’m most likely going to fear my boss whether or not they are cruel. In fact, if they are cruel I’m not only going to fear them but I’m probably going to hate them too. I know that if I mess up in some way where I am to blame, I am going to get punished. It is then their decision to either punish me fairly or cruelly. For example if I arrive twenty minutes late to work, I would expect to be yelled at and warned. If I instead arrive late (for the first time) and am fired, I will be fairly upset and maybe start to hate my boss. In fact, I might not even fear him/her because of their cruelty. It would make me want to rise up and defend myself more. To then apply this to the prince example, I disagree that it is necessary for a prince to be cruel. If they start killing people for no reason other than to set an example, citizens might develop more anger than fear towards him. Therefore, I think having a successful rein or being a successful leader takes fear but the fear can come from the title. They need to be strict, assertive, and just, but I think it is enough to punish people fairly to invoke fear. - Mary H.
I also agree with Molly and Catherine. It is defiantly possible for someone to come back into the realm of happiness after a tragedy. When the horrible situation does strike, you have the choice of how you are going to handle yourself. You obviously have a time to mourn but in the end it's up to you how you are going to continue. You can look the situation in the eye, and find a way to cope with it, or you can let it swallow you whole, leaving you feeling empty and hopeless. I know real tragedy has not struck in my life so I can not personally say what I would choose but each person has the right to decide how happy or unhappy they want to be. Also, there are different levels of things that happen and different types of people who are able to maybe have a better understanding of how to deal with each situation. One person might be better at mourning and moving on then another, making their life result maybe a little more happy. Each situation is different and it is very hard to categorize it into one simple list.
Going off of Maisie’s point, I also believe it is possible for one to come back into happiness after a tragedy. Tragedies throughout one’s life are incomparable to small misfortunate events that shape one’s happiness from a day to day basis. Often, many will let a tragic event shape and define one’s life from the point of the event on. However, the way people react to similar tragedies is what determines their happiness, not the tragedy itself. For example, say two families have unfortunately lost a loved one to cancer. One family may be crushed by this tragic event, finding it impossible to cope and find peace with the loss. On the other hand, another family may use this tragedy to make them stronger by donating to and helping others facing similar situations. As Maisie said, it all depends on the individual and how easily they are able to cope to determine their ultimate happiness. As Aristotle claims, the happiness of an individual can only be determined at the end of their life, which I believe to be true looking from the perspective of those who have experienced tragedy. Just because they have experienced misfortune at one point in their life it doesn’t mean that one will always be unhappy, it is necessary to see the sum of one’s entire lifetime experiences to determine their ultimate happiness.
Cruelty is unavoidable because without it a prince would not be able to take and hold power. For the same reason that Machiavelli says that it is better to be feared than loved, stability, it is better to take power using cruelty rather than kindness. Assuming that all people are out for their own benefit, then using kindness will only show weakness, something others can and will take advantage of, rather than strength. -Thomas N.
ReplyDeleteThere are many degrees of cruelty on the spectrum and the extent to which someone is cruel could make it almost avoidable. Choosing appropriate reactions as a prince is more applicable to keeping power in my opinion. For example, killing someone for stealing a loaf of bread would be cruel, where as killing a murderer could seem more justified. It's the same act, yet the cruelty aspect of it is a variable. I do agree with your point though of self preservation and human's tendency to avoid weakness in situatons.
DeleteThomas, you say, "without it a prince would not be able to take and hold power", but I still want to know why. I want more concrete reasons. Because people are self-interested and without respect for kindness? Can the threat of force not itself be sufficient to maintain power?
DeleteAnd as for degrees of cruelty, I wonder. Isn't cruelty an expression of force just beyond what is just? Would an expression of force considerably beyond proportion exceed even cruelty into the space of inhumanity?
Without the knowledge of the Italian and the context, these questions are perhaps idle, yet I do think conceptually we can circumscribe the "cruel."
In contrast to Thomas, I think it is very possible for a prince to take and maintain power without being cruel. For instance, if a prince comes to power and is respected for his admirable traits (such as honesty and loyalty), I feel as though his people would be more inclined to obey him. Often I think people lack respect and obedience for authoritative figures because they feel as though they are being treated wrongly. However, if a prince treats his people as they would wish to be treated, I do not think many people would have any reason to disobey him. In fact, I think the prince's people would be more inclined to try to please their ruler and make him proud. Ultimately the prince may have a much easier time maintaining power simply because he would have much less people interested in betraying him.
DeleteAs to Kathleen's comment, I would love to agree. However, I only believe that would be the case in a perfect world. As a leader, it is impossible to make everyone happy. What is beneficial for someone may negatively affect someone else.
DeleteIf we are using "cruelty" as a punishment that is beyond what is just..then i do think it is necessary. A ruler must make a point to prevent others from doing the same in the future. If the punishment is fairly deserved then people are more likely to take the risk compared to a more extreme punishment.
If we are using "cruelty" as inhuman actions... I believe that would be a different story.
Does a leader need to be respected in order to be effective, to maintain power? Not outside any system in which a leader is elected. Instead, he (merely needs not to be hated.
DeleteExample, although they are not in power, but they have certainly drawn attention to themselves: ISIS (not the spy agency in "Archer")..
I agree with Thomas on this one. Let's take North Korea, for example (not the best example of a "happy people,” [though here is something interesting to see: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1393478/North-Korea-rated-the-happiest-places-Earth-survey--North-Korea.html). When Kim Jong-Il died, people flocked to see the funeral and were physically disturbed by the happenings. Their actions were reminiscent of something like a family member mourning a lost relative: sobbing, over-the-top flailing, etc.
DeleteThis relates to cruelty for obvious reasons. Here is an article showing the realities of life in North Korea, as seen through the lens of an outsider: http://nypost.com/2014/01/11/life-inside-the-surreal-cruel-sheltered-north-korea/
Some points from this: People have rationed food, others starve without any other support, etc.
It's basically a Big Brother state. Yet, as evidenced by the dramatic responses of the citizens to Kim Jong-Il's death, this is just how the people live in North Korea.
Speaking of Big Brother, let's talk 1984. In this novel, people live under the densest iron fist regime ever. People aren't even allowed to think in ways contrary to the Big Brother regime. This results in a population of individuals who essentially do the biddings of the government. Those, like Winston, who go against the grain, are tortured and, for lack of a better term, brainwashed.
Sounds just like North Korea. The dictators and ruling regimes are ridiculously cruel. However, it “keeps the people in line,” and discourages opposition.
Regarding your last question, Prof Vaught, it sure doesn't seem like Kim Jong-Il was the best of men. Professor Kim Hyun Sik administered one of Kim Jong-Il’s oral final exams. He notes that “I wish I could argue that the shy and determined young man I first met that October day is the real person behind the cruel and mercurial dictator the rest of the world now knows him to be” (Sik, 47). It doesn’t seem like Jong-Il was initially a cruel person, but it looks like he may have had to become one in order to keep the reins on his country. –Akshay Patel
Akshay referenced many great contemporary issues and literature that sparked me to think about one of my favorite novels, Anthem, by Ayn Rand. It is similar to 1984 in that the society is a collectivist nation where everyone has their duty. If someone steps out of line, there is immediate punishment. Usually, the punishment is incredibly cruel and does not match the "crime," such as beatings and other physical abuse. In this society, cruelty is used as a way to instill fear in the citizens so they follow the regimented system. While this cruelty is an effective tool to brainwash most of its citizens, it does not imply that the citizens respect the leaders. Eventually, internal conflict and rebellion will fester (as seen in Anthem) because I believe that in order to have a sustaining reign, a leader must gain the respect of its citizens and those with whom he develops relationships. Although ISIS is currently very powerful and has accumulated a substantial following, they are detested by the majority of the world. This disgust and disrespect for this group will only lead to the destruction of the group's ephemeral power. Similarly with a prince, while fear tactics may work, they will not guarantee security for a long reign because unjustified cruelty only breeds anger and disrespect from its citizens and the rest of the world. If the prince is not maintaining strong relationships with other authority figures, they will not respect him and work against him to destroy his power. All in all, while cruelty may be a temporary fix to a solution, it is not a tool that will grant a leader the respect and loyalty necessary for a long lasting reign.
DeleteTo add to the previous comment, cruelty is unavoidable and often favored if a prince uses it wisely. In order to not abuse his power, a prince must always make the punishment a person is receiving match the crime in order to justify the cruelty of the disciplining. This is necessary in order for the prince to avoid hate. If a prince can successfully avoid abhorrence from his kingdom, then his power will not be threatened. If his authority is not under attack, then according to the prince, the kingdom is in a state of peace and order. Ultimately, the goal behind the prince's use of cruelty is for his own self-preservation and to avoid upheaval in the kingdom. Similar to the prince, we are Machiavellian in the sense that it is our natural desire to seek self-preservation.
ReplyDeleteUnlike Machiavelli, most modern political authorities and government officials, with the exception of dictators and radical political groups, seek for their citizens to follow the laws based on respect and loyalty to their power as leaders. This is very different from Machiavelli, who relied on fear as a means to obtaining obedient followers. To reference a question posed in class, I do believe that respect and loyalty go hand in hand. A prince who rules through fear lacks loyalty among his followers. Although they may obey his rules, this does not imply that they support or feel allegiance towards his reign. They are simply obeying out of fear in order to avoid punishment. -Larissa M.
With regard to the 2nd question: I couldn’t help but think of the prince as God during our discussion about being feared vs. being loved. In the Old Testament, God can be described as extremely cruel (ei the flood, destroying cities). But in the New Testament, God sends Jesus to save sinners from damnation, which instills love in many believers. Additionally, fear of God is considered a virtue in Christian faith. However, many people would settle for loving God. I wonder if these points can be related back to The Prince to help us make sense of fear vs. love, whether one needs to be cruel to be feared, and if one can be cruel and still loved. -Meaghan F.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Meaghan’s post, I find your observation interesting and overall regardless if God was deemed cruel or loving, in the end was he not still the one who holds the power? The one above us all? He was a cruel God though many of his actions were in response to disobedience and the evil that was occurring in the world. This argument can support the idea that was discussed in class about justification when being cruel in efforts for the “greater good” or for humanity. If the act in itself can be a justified punishment and not a cruel act out of hatred, then I support Machiavelli’s point that it is better to be hated than loved. –Janine R.
DeleteDo you mean feared rather than hated? I just want to clarify because we've obviously dissected the shit out of these words and concluded that they are different. With regard to God still holding power regardless of being feared or being loved, I kind of think that's the point I was, rather slowly, getting to. That's just the thing. God is this omnipotent, omniscient being. To suggest that any human prince could hold power using the same technique God does is disconserting. So does Machiavelli actually believe that a human could fulfill this ideal that he has described? -Meaghan F.
DeleteCruelty and violence should be seperated. Being cruel in my opinion is use of excessive means. if you're looking for the greater good in a society, you're constantly looking at good actions and bad actions in an infinite flux. At any one point you could pause the situation and debate whether or not someone is being cruel. For example during war you may be cruel, but the reasoning behind war and the ultimate ending of war may not be cruel. The extent to which someone is cruel is debatable but some form of cruelty (psychological or physical sense) was typically needed in Machiavelli's perspective.
ReplyDeleteAdding to this point, I believe that one of the fundamental differences between cruelty and violence is the fact that violence is typically something physical, whereas cruelty is something that can assault the very fabrics of our beings. Violence includes things such as assault, breaking and entering, rape and even murder, all physical crimes, all causing damage, initially, on the outsides of our bodies. Cruelty can kill us on the inside without leaving so much as a scratch on our skins. Cruelty can mean just the absolute absence of any morale and decency, the complete disregard for another human being.
DeleteI think cruelty is excessive in relation to being feared because I don't think a prince will ever be respected if he is cruel. Although cruelty may often seem necessary in some extreme cases, I believe there are other actions a prince could take to punish someone for their wrong actions. For example, putting wrong-doers in prison for life is a harsh punishment but it is not cruel. Most people would not want to be locked in a cell for their entire life; therefore, the prince could still be feared. I think fear is probably necessary when ruling a large mass of people; however, in my opinion, cruelty is taking it to a different level in terms of fear. Ultimately, there will always be a need for reprimand but I believe cruelty itself will only result in a lack of respect and admiration for the prince in power.
ReplyDeleteGoing off of Kathleen's point, I do believe that cruelty can sometimes be excessive but the prince must decide whether he wants to be loved or feared. If he wants respect, then he cannot be cruel but if he wants to continue to be prince he must not come across as weak. On the other hand, if the prince chooses to be feared than cruelty is the way to go but he must not go passed a certain point. A prince can only be cruel if the actions can be justified so that people now know what not to do, therefore providing the prince with power without him having to worry about rebellion. If he kills simply to kill, it will only be a matter of time before people rebel because, in that case, what do they have to lose? With him as a ruler they risk being killed anyway. So in all, I do believe being feared is the easier way to maintain power as long as the cruel acts are somehow justified because being loved can come off to many as being weak.
DeleteI agree with Kathleen's point that excessive cruelty will not result in success. I think that a prince can easily be feared by his people, without using cruelty as his only method. There is a large difference between a punishment, and a cruel punishment. It is necessary that a prince justly punishes a person for breaking the law, but, like Kathleen was saying, putting someone in prison for life is a much better idea than harshly killing them. This will instill fear in the people, without causing hatred or betrayal towards the prince.
DeleteCruelty, I believe is unavoidable because humans have a natural tendency to live in harmony when there is a hierarchy created. I immediately thought of Hobbes' view on this topic. He believes that when all humans are created equal, we live in a perpetual state of fear of one another. To solve this issue of fear, there must be a cruel and all powerful leader who the common man can fear more than he fears his fellow citizens. I agree that we fear one another to a certain extent, so it is necessary for the ruler to be more cruel because this is how he gains his power. Although people may hate the idea of living under a cruel ruler, it is the only way that we can avoid complete chaos for humanity.
ReplyDeleteWith regards to the previous comment, I would disagree with Hobbes' cynical view of human nature. Humans most certainly do not live in constant fear of one another. One may fear someone or something for a period of time, but this is temporary not permanent. Eventually the fear will subside and another emotion will take its place. For instance one may fear someone else for a period of time and then proceed to discover more about them and replace this feeling with a hatred or fondness towards them. Therefore, if a ruler were to come to power through his cruelty and on the basis of fear, his reign may not last. Eventually the citizens will replace their initial fear with some other feeling towards the ruler. If hatred replaces the fear, revolts will oftentimes unfold.
DeleteRe: Payal, does that stand even for constitutional forms of government, namely, that cruelty is necessary for stability?
DeleteIn response to Charlie's post, I see your point in that we replace the initial fear of one another with another emotion, but at the same time I think Hobbes' point has validity because he sees humans as equal "machines", so it is natural that we have the same appetite and desires. Although other emotions may exist along with the fear, the fear will always be there because all humans have similar ultimate goals- whether that is wealth, happiness, political power, or virtue, or perhaps these all fall under the category of happiness as we have discussed this week in class. We are all in the race to achieve the same thing, so there is bound to be competition in fear with this.
DeleteProfessor Vaught, Hobbes' point is more directly relating to forms of absolute monarchies because in this the citizens are supposed to fear the leader a tremendous amount more than they do their citizens. Although, I do think that "cruelty" is necessary because something must set apart the leader in the eyes of the citizens. The term cruelty is vague here, but my opinion of it is that it is a reasonable amount of punishment inflicted upon people who disobey the ruler and commit actions that hurt the condition of the state/country/etc. Cruelty by the leader is what sets examples to the people as to what they cannot do. It is similar to the parenting example from class because parents cannot be too easy going or too strict because both of these extremes will back fire, whereas the middle ground between these is what I equate with the "cruelty" a prince needs to exercise for stability.
Cruelty is never what makes people fear someone, it only opens the gateway for a lack of respect and rebellion from the citizens. Similar to how Kathleen feels about the topic, cruelty is the last resort for punishment. It's a tactic used by a Prince more often than not to send a message to his citizens but rarely is the message necessary or received by the masses because the majority already respect the Prince. Because there are naturally many more people who do respect the Prince than who don't, I believe cruel acts could only be detrimental and hurt his image causing him to lose respect rather than gain it from horrific deeds.
ReplyDeleteI believe that cruelty is excessive and should not be used to make your country or city fear you. Fear can do horrible things to people and can cause more pain and suffering then intended. The Prince would say that to get people to listen to you, there must be some sort of violent and cruel act that shows them were the power lies. However, I believe that having a smart ruler would be better. Someone who can think on their feet and not be dead set in their ways of ruling. They should be able to adapt to every situation and be open to others ideas that would help contribute to the well being of the entire city. I know these ideas are very modern, but I think the Prince could have implemented some of them. In the Prince's case, cruelty is what makes people fearful because you never know when it is going to break down and they are going to maybe die. It can also be the cause of rebellion and unrest between the people because they feel their lives are being run by a tyrant who can't control himself.
ReplyDeleteI strongly agree with Maisie here as she believes a smart ruler would be better. I believe that intellectual force is greater than physical force and can be used in multiple areas of ruling. A strategic ruler will over power a physical ruler by always thinking one step ahead. In Orange Is The New Black, there is a war between two women "mothers" in the prison who fight each other both mentally and physically. The physical woman, at first, proposes the most threat as she is of greater body weight. However, as the war continues, the strategic and intellectual prisoner eventually wins as she is always planning one step ahead. This intelligence really puts her at a greater advantage when everyone at first doubts her. Other prisoners also become allies with her believing that she will best protect them. Relating back to The Prince, more citizens will generally go to a smart prince out of loyalty instead of a forceful prince out of fear.
DeleteI believe that cruelty is unavoidable, but not necessary in all cases and aspects of life, as a cruel reign can result in protests, rebellions, and even fatal wars. For example, the country of the Philippines was under martial law for many years that was instituted through the cruel dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos. During his election, he strived to gain the love and support of the people by advocating against the Vietnam War and constantly reaffirming his opposition towards violence and war. However, during his first term as president, Marcos ruled with a cruel and betraying hand by still sending troops into the fray of the Vietnam War. In addition to embezzling billions of dollars from the Philippine people and redirecting U.S. aid for the people towards his own cabinet members, he ordered the assassination of the nation’s advocate and his main adversary, Benigno Aquino Jr. This assassination, along with his cruel acts as a dictator and the gradual loss of support from society, finally pushed the Filipino people to rebel against and overthrow Marcos’s regime.
ReplyDeleteA leader, prince, or president does not need to possess a cruel persona or enact cruel actions on the people in order to be listened, followed, and respected for he could also be rebelled against or even overthrown in government. I think that a prince should be both feared and loved to a certain extent in that although his people admire, respect, and follow him, they also know that his hand is fully able to rule and put everyone into their own places.
Regarding the second question, I think excessive cruelty is what makes someone feared. Take a college professor, for example. Hearing the dark tales my parents relay to me about their college professors in India really makes me appreciate my professors at Villanova much more. These professors would curse students out in front of the class, prohibit students from leaving (even for bathroom breaks), and would even hit students with rulers and rods if the students were out of line. This made the student-professor dynamic a strained relationship.
ReplyDeleteHere is what makes this interesting: Professors are regarded with the highest regard among professions in India. They are seen as intellectually superior and almost demand a respect of sorts. At the professor-student level, they are harsh and, what we would consider as cruel. At the faculty level (my mom is a professor here, so she gets the same respect when she visits college abroad), they are not as pig-headed and mean. On the contrary, they are humble and sweet people.
It wasn’t until recently I realized that they just demand respect in the classroom to maintain order. After all, if the class is disorderly and students don’t do their work when requested, how are they to learn? Students don’t dare to speak out of turn, yell out in class, or even look away from the board. It is a tactic which not only instills fear into the students, but it maintains order and civility.
Another example of this is the Drill Instructor in Full Metal Jacket. He was overly cruel with Leonard Lawrence (Gomer Pyle), resorting to chocking him and even having the rest of the recruits do pushups around him as he ate a donut he wasn’t supposed to eat. The Instructor’s actions were for the benefit of the recruits. By being overly harsh, the Instructor maintained the façade of order (I say façade, because Lawrence does indeed kill the Instructor and himself at the end, possibly proving the point that people shouldn’t be excessively cruel, but enough to maintain order). -Akshay Patel
In reaction to third question, I believe that we are all Machiavellian in that we understand this topic of cruelty in relation to fear on so many different levels. After reading many of the comments above, I have concluded that though we all seem to have different notions of cruel actions and the nature of a truly “cruel” leader, we all can relate the idea to certain topics and examples such as wars, violence, and various punishments, etc. I therefore believe that our ability to rationalize cruelty and justify it in certain instances makes us all a bit Machiavellian, for we can all somehow wrap our minds around his theories regarding effective ruling, and though we may debate them, the concepts are not very foreign to us and it seems to be quite easy for us all to play “devil’s advocate” in this instance. Noting that we do have this (perhaps inherent) ability to understand and rationalize cruelty, I believe that we all do have an “ethical task” if we are even partially Machiavellian. This task is to always be aware of this side of ourselves and to think logically in situations where we are tempted to exercise cruelty and act purely in self preservation as (according to Machiavelli) so many of us do. Perhaps the more Machiavelli we read, the more we come to understand these slightly darker facets of our personalities and the better equipped we will become to suppress them when they are not necessary.
ReplyDelete-Lexi N
Lexi, I completely agree with your assertion of our duty regarding cruelty. After having read Machiavelli I think that identifying these sorts of cruel acts assists us in understanding our own desires to act in a cruel way. House of Cards for example gives a great glimpse into the cruel acts that can be associated in politics today. Although using cruelty to gain power seems to be unethical and undesirable, a vast number of people still utilize it. In this way it appears as if although we understand possible negative aspects of acting in this sort of manner, our natural inclination to act cruelly is still able to win sometimes. This is a somewhat frightening description of ourselves as it implies that no matter our discipline cruelty will manage to win at some point.
DeleteIn today’s class we discussed if happiness is a divine gift and if fortune and faith play a role in one’s life in determining happiness. I found this to be very confusing because originally I believed that if happiness was a divine gift, not from the Gods, but someone superior then wouldn’t the giver want that individual to be happy eternally? I thought that if one were blessed to have the gift then they would be happy in life. However, as class progressed fate and fortune came into play. If fortune interrupted said gift of happiness then I believe it is up to that individual to see if they would make the best of it or crumble down. I believe that if that individual had the divine gift they would be able to overcome any trouble in their life. A horrible car accident would certainly put a damper on said happiness but if that individual were granted the divine gift they would be able to overcome the tragedy; at least in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteOddly enough I disagree with you here Jacqueline, while fortune definitely plays a big role in how we determine our "happiness", everyone's life is filled with fortunate and unfortunate experiences, how are we to say that an individual granted the "divine gift" should overcome those misfortunes? It would seem to me that a hopeful individual could overcome anything as well. To me, a life filled with unceasing hope is much more beneficial than that of promise and guarantee. Hope carries us through the hard times and humbles us during the good times, whereas a gift neither prepares us nor gives us any control over our end goal, which in this case is "happiness".
DeleteTo add to this, I do not think we are given happiness as a gift. Happiness is what drives us to do anything. We learn, start a career, have a family, and travel to be happy. So if we spend our entire lives working towards being happy, I wonder how it can be a gift. Happiness is more of something in the distance; it’s a goal. You can certainly be happy, but I agree with Aristotle that we have to wait until the end to determine if we lead a happy life. Therefore, I agree with Jonathan that hope is going to help people overcome unfortunate events more than a divine gift. And if they do overcome a tragedy, and later continue to live a happy, it will be up to debate whether or not they had happiness. Some will and some won’t but I don’t think anyone is destined to find it.
DeleteTo add to the conversation I agree with the previous comments that happiness is not a given gift but rather something that is acquired through once we have reached a completed life. I agree with Aristotle in regards that happiness is largely dependent on the life of habituation of activity. Happiness is reached by learning and is something to be shared by others. Since happiness involves other people being that it is an activity of virtue, this must mean that we as humans have control over the end goal of happiness. Being that happiness is dependent on others as well, one can argue that if happiness were to be a predetermine gift, people will not necessarily perform virtuous acts to each the end goal of happiness; thus, providing no contribution to the happiness of those around them. -Janine R.
DeleteGoing off of what we said in class yesterday, happiness can still be possible even when talking about a someone who has lost their entire family, job, and whose life is in shambles. It is assumed that before the death of his family and the loss of his job, this man was happy. He lived a comfortable, normal, happy life. And now that he lost everything that gave him happiness, it seems difficult to believe that he could ever possibly be happy again. But if he redefines the term "happiness," it can perhaps be achieved. Now, to him, happiness will not mean family or work, but rather it will mean being alive and maybe just the simpler things in life at the time- maybe he got a new house, made a new friend, or bought a new car. Of course, these things won't replace the happiness he had with his family but it will bring happiness to him in a different way that may fill his void at least for a short time. But he can never have that same happiness that he felt prior to the death of his family.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Catherine's point. I think that it is possible for someone to be happy after they have experienced a tragedy in their life, although at the time of the tragedy they most likely weren't happy. I believe that a person who has experienced hardships and tragedies may be more appreciative of the good things in their life, and really understand what it means to be happy. Someone who has never experienced anything bad probably won't appreciate happiness as much as the person who overcame their struggles.
ReplyDeleteTo answer the second question, I think cruelty is excessive in regards to being feared. For example, I’m most likely going to fear my boss whether or not they are cruel. In fact, if they are cruel I’m not only going to fear them but I’m probably going to hate them too. I know that if I mess up in some way where I am to blame, I am going to get punished. It is then their decision to either punish me fairly or cruelly. For example if I arrive twenty minutes late to work, I would expect to be yelled at and warned. If I instead arrive late (for the first time) and am fired, I will be fairly upset and maybe start to hate my boss. In fact, I might not even fear him/her because of their cruelty. It would make me want to rise up and defend myself more. To then apply this to the prince example, I disagree that it is necessary for a prince to be cruel. If they start killing people for no reason other than to set an example, citizens might develop more anger than fear towards him. Therefore, I think having a successful rein or being a successful leader takes fear but the fear can come from the title. They need to be strict, assertive, and just, but I think it is enough to punish people fairly to invoke fear. - Mary H.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Molly and Catherine. It is defiantly possible for someone to come back into the realm of happiness after a tragedy. When the horrible situation does strike, you have the choice of how you are going to handle yourself. You obviously have a time to mourn but in the end it's up to you how you are going to continue. You can look the situation in the eye, and find a way to cope with it, or you can let it swallow you whole, leaving you feeling empty and hopeless. I know real tragedy has not struck in my life so I can not personally say what I would choose but each person has the right to decide how happy or unhappy they want to be. Also, there are different levels of things that happen and different types of people who are able to maybe have a better understanding of how to deal with each situation. One person might be better at mourning and moving on then another, making their life result maybe a little more happy. Each situation is different and it is very hard to categorize it into one simple list.
ReplyDeleteGoing off of Maisie’s point, I also believe it is possible for one to come back into happiness after a tragedy. Tragedies throughout one’s life are incomparable to small misfortunate events that shape one’s happiness from a day to day basis. Often, many will let a tragic event shape and define one’s life from the point of the event on. However, the way people react to similar tragedies is what determines their happiness, not the tragedy itself. For example, say two families have unfortunately lost a loved one to cancer. One family may be crushed by this tragic event, finding it impossible to cope and find peace with the loss. On the other hand, another family may use this tragedy to make them stronger by donating to and helping others facing similar situations. As Maisie said, it all depends on the individual and how easily they are able to cope to determine their ultimate happiness. As Aristotle claims, the happiness of an individual can only be determined at the end of their life, which I believe to be true looking from the perspective of those who have experienced tragedy. Just because they have experienced misfortune at one point in their life it doesn’t mean that one will always be unhappy, it is necessary to see the sum of one’s entire lifetime experiences to determine their ultimate happiness.
ReplyDelete