Answer :
Final answer:
The subject involves discussing political authority and whether a ruler should be feared or loved, reflecting on perspectives from Thomas Hobbes regarding the social contract, as well as the legitimacy of rulers and various forms of government such as divine rule, virtue, and democracy.
Explanation:
Who Should Rule and the Nature of Power
The discussion from the student reflects on the nature of political authority and whether it is more effective for a ruler to be feared or loved. Referencing various philosophical perspectives, the conclusion is that while both elements have a role, practicality suggests basing power on what is controllable, such as fear, rather than relying on the unpredictable loyalty of love. However, extreme fear without respect can lead to hatred, which undermines authority.
Thomas Hobbes discussed the concept of the social contract in his work 'Leviathan', suggesting that to avoid the anarchy inherent in our nature, people must surrender their freedoms to a ruler. Such a ruler would maintain order and prevent the chaos of each individual acting solely in their personal interests, thereby securing a richer and safer life for the commonwealth. Yet, this must be balanced; excessive fear can attract hatred and instability, making despotism hard to sustain. Aristotle and Plato also explored the idea of ideal rulers, cautioning that even well-intentioned governance could descend into tyranny or oligarchy if not properly checked.
Furthermore, societal norms have shifted over time, allowing for various sources of legitimacy in government, including divine rule, virtue, and democracy. The legitimacy of a ruler can come from different ideologies: some societies view their leaders as divine, others consider the virtue of wise philosopher-kings ideal, and modern democracies depend on the consent of the governed. Thus, the source of authority and its rightful use is central to the stability of any government.
