Yes or no?

Question

It is better to be feared than loved. Love is preserved by an obligatory link which people may break and usually do whenever it is advantageous for them to do so. But fear, on the other hand, is preserved by the threat of punishment, which rarely fails.

People love according to their own will, and fear according to the will of the person they fear. So it would make sense to establish alliances based on what is within your own control, and not in the control of others.

Answer 1

You say better, but better for what? What's better depends on the end purpose you have in mind. Fear might be better in terms of leading an army. But if you're talking about being a happy individual, I think love would be the better option.

Answer 2

I agree love is whimsical and can be discontinued without reason. But fear is so complicated a subject. FEAR, or giving fear to another, did you know, is an assault? Technicially, a threatening to put another in danger, as enforcing fear, is really a civil crime. A person can sue you.

But fear works, no doubt. But perhaps in a totalitarian society, corporate life, or any sub-culture that works in that way, such as the military... but generally, in a free society, NO. Within the home of an abuser? Yes, fear works. A home is an enclosed sub-culture, which can become isolated from the reality check of the rest of society.


I believe both are ultimately human manipulations, which never really exist, but in the minds. Fear is a psychological state, an physiological reaction, an emotion. Love is the same.

All emotions are HIGHLY volatile, and both can fail. The dynamics, I think usually happen in a single person-to-person for love, but fear is usually a group-think that works a bit better to enforce.

Answer 3

You're missing a couple of points in that. Fear isn't as effective as you make it out to be. For one thing, people, despite what you think, fear according to their own will also. If I'm not scared of death or torture, how can you make me fear you with threats of death or torture? In order for threats of punishment to make me fear you, I have to fear the punishment you're threatening, but if I don't, your ability to control me is minimal. A common feature of torture and death camps are prisoners who acquiesce to their own death and resist their captors. It happened in Auschwitz, Siberia, Cambodia, Uganda, etc., etc...At some point the effect of control through fear will diminish as they become accustomed to their situation. Maybe on a large enough scale (such as a nation-state) it works, but only temporarily.

Likewise, you can never trust someone you control, because they have valid motives to stab you in the back. And you know what? It's pretty often the case that people with valid motives to stab you in the back will eventually do so when they get the opportunity. Even if they don't, you'll get the luxury of being paranoid that they do. Which is why throughout history, paranoia is a common psychological trait among autocratic leaders (i.e. Hitler, Stalin, Jim Jones, etc.) This especially doesn't work at all in interpersonal relationships where you can't watch someone 24 hours a day.

In other words, you'd better be prepared to invest a lot of time towards the end of controlling someone, even as it most likely won't gain much for you (certainly not peace of mind). You especially won't gain much since the only people who are effectively controlled are people with a herd-mentality, and they're generally the bottom of the barrel anyway. The best and brightest will inevitably resist you or betray you if you try to control them through fear.

Answer 4

No it is not better to be feared than loved.
Alliances based on fear are shakey, and unstable because the downtrodden or fearing people, always want to rise up and change their position (killing you, burning your house, taking someone you love hostage) a virtual 'coup de etat'. read the
"communist manefesto" for more stuff about the ruling class and the down trodden and their endless cycle of suffering.
Alliances based on love are more stable, the suffering cycledoes not exist here. You have more control over the wills of others than you seem to believe. Love breeds love, basicly. Reactions to alliances based on love include, providing help when you need it, gifts, and general returned good will.

Essentially, fear breeds fear and love breeds love.
whitch would you want to be responsible for?

Answer 5

If indeed it is your objective to rule then yes, fear is a tool and a weapon more useful than love in many cases. That is to say, it is easier to weild.

However, it is not always the better choice. You must remember that those that admire you will work/fight harder to retain your admiration in turn, while those that fear you will fight only so hard as to not feel your wrath.

And, incidentally, you are wrong about control. There is no guarunteed means of controlling others, short of killing them (which renders them useless anyways). Each person is in control of their own mind, and though you may think you are in control of the alliance, they may choose to stop fearing you (and possibly end their fears by ending you) at any time.

The path of rule by fear is one of nervously watching over your back for the knife.

Answer 6

By all means , if you are enjoying someone else`s fear you go ahead. Fear is a one way traffic as againgt Love`s two way communication. For all you know, if your demand of Love is fear based you will only get that response.

If you shed that approach and try, for a change , Love on Give and take basis , you will see a sea change in you.

The only exception to this rule is the fear of a child for her mother if she scolds her. This fear is alove based fear as the mother has amply demostrated that she loves her child most.

Answer 7

Being feared by others is illusory power, the real power lies in being loved and respected by others. Through fear, you do not capture their will, you just get peripheral compliance awaiting the first available opportunity to strike back. When you control through fear, your first slip may sound your death-knell..... but in the other case, your several slips are not only forgiven but also responded with active support for avoiding future slips.

Answer 8

It is better to be loved than feared. Love is letting go of fear. Love is a positive emotion. Fear is a negative emotion. A positive energy of love releases the freedom of the soul to endure and create a win-win situation.

Answer 9

The answer is and will always be 'no'. its better to be loved than feared. Unless you havent noticed most people hate the person they fear. People whom you fear won't help you when you're in trouble. They don't recognise you for who you are. And people who truly love you won't break the 'link' as you put it.

Answer 10

ur taking extremes here, i think what ur looking for is respect.
Respect is when ppl care alot about what u think of them, and are afraid to let u down by their actions but not cz of the concequences that they'll face when they mess up. but cz they like you and cz they look up you and they want u to like them back... It all takes the right attitude... it's too long to explain, u know what i mean, ur question is a shrap one.
P.S. "ppl fear according to the will of the person they fear" that's an exception. it can all be controled