It is Better to Rule through Fear than through Love

This is a very intresting debate. Likewise, I shall be quoting Plato's Republic. In particular, Socrates and Thracymachus's argument on justice. They were talking about justice, but I feel it applies the same. I will be arguing on mostly moral ground, but I will also indulge in its effectiveness. I will assume fear is a form of injustice. http://www.youtube.com...A) Socrates, in book one of "The Republic", was in an argument with Thrasymachus, over whether it is better to be a just ruler or an injust ruler. Thrasymachus argued that justice was the advantage of the stronger. He implys that what is good for the strong, benefits the weak. Plato countered this by saying that all humans can make mistakes, even the strong. I interpreted it like this... 1) If a ruler rules through fear and power, and makes a mistake, he is causing his citizens to follow his rulings as if they were just. Causing a disadvantage to the nation, as who can oppose a injust ruler who feels he makes just laws. The only course for change is protest and/or revolution. B) Thrasymachus then used an example that is very simmilar to your reasoning. He said that if a city has a strong ruler, who creates laws to benefit his own vision, then the citizens will follow his laws, making the city stronger. He used an analogy about craftsman. He said that since a ruler (In this case a fearful and powerful one) is a craftman, he will attempt to perfect his craft. And a craftsman who makes mistakes, is ignorant to the perfection he seeks (Yes, this contradicts the fact that humans make mistakes). Plato countered again, by stating that all craftsman final product benefits the subgect. He used a few examples... Example One: A doctor uses his skills to treat the patientExample Two: A ship captain uses his skills in navigation to keep his men and ship safe .1) If you examine Socrates reasoning, you can see the wisdom. Thrasymarchus can not object to this statment, as it contradicts his reasoning that a injust (fearful and powerful for the debate) ruler can not make a mistake. Which as I stated, will result in protest and civil war. C) Thrasymachus, not yet willing to concede, furthered his argument. He radicalized his statement, now in anger. He stated an injust ruler ( fearful and strong), who rules through injustice, would become powerful and happy. Which would in turn, make the people more powerful and happy, making the kingdom stronger. While Thrasymachus brings up a good point, he is again contradicting Socrates initial rebut. He finished by saying...“You say that the proper ruler will consider the benefit of his subjects and thus act justly. I say that injustice leads to a happy life and that craftsmen do aim at their own advantage.” D) From this line, Socrates was able to make new arguments. He asked Thrasymachus if a just man would try to surpass a unjust one. Thrasymachus agreed that it would be the duty of the just man. Then Socrates asked if an unjust man would try to surpass a unjust one. Thrasymachus said he would not. Socrates then used the craftsman argument again, but this time he added to it. No ruler, fearful, powerful, kind, forgiving, or loving would ever do his craft for nothing. He then gives three reason on why someone might practice his craft...1) Money2) Honor3) PenalizationThrasymachus asked what Plato meant by penalization. Plato said that the just man would be penalized by having an unjust one come to power, so he would pursue rule, in order to prevent the injust from ruling. This complimented his craftsman argument. A doctor would not seek to surpass a non-doctor. Nor would a Captain seek to surpass a non-captain. A doctor might want to surpass another doctor though. Just as a captain would want to surpass a fellow captain. Socrates clarified that a man who would surpass all others in his craft is ignorant. Which means an unjust man (strong, powerful, fearful) is weak and ignorant. He had also indirectly switched the subject, as he was now implying that justice was a craft. Thrasymachus silently conceded. Conclusion-------------- A powerful and fearful man is human, whom can make mistakes, makes rulings that are considered by him to be just. Citizens must follow them as just. Leading to civil war or protest if the ruler made an injust law. You too have ignored the basic knowledge that all people make mistakes.- Ruling is a craft. With Socrates philosophy, all crafts seek to serve. By being a fearful ruler, you are being unjust, and injustice is ignorant as you are only serving yourself, which will lead just men to attempt to surpass you. Whether it be civil war or revolution. Hence, a fearful leader can not maintain control.- If Socrates implys that justice is a craft, can love also be a craft? You serve others through love, and you are payed back through benefits. Hence, a peaceful system of rule is established. The loving ruler will serve the population with care and justice, and will be benifited through not being served by the unjust. Sources---------I mostly used my knowledge from book one of "The Republuic", but this source came to great benefit.http://sesquipadalianmusings.blogspot.com...I have only just got into philosophy, but I feel this is a pretty sound interpretation of Socrates writings. Anyways, I am sure I made some mistakes, because I don't have the book with me, but tell me if I'm wrong on anything.