Answer:
Why should a prince not worry too much about “the stigma of cruelty”? How can being too compassionate actually be worse for the country?
If a leader cannot be both feared and liked, Machiavelli recommends that they should at least be dreaded. He argues a leader should lead with fear, if not both terror and love. Also, allowing illnesses to develop that do not harm the total population. A leader must understand that love is sustained by duty, while fear is perpetuated by the constant threat of punishment. If you can't be loved, don't hate.
Why is it possible for a prince to be feared, yet not hated?
One may survive being feared but not hated. For instance, he argues," because he can endure very well being feared whilst he is not hated." (Machiavelli, 1532). This means that fear makes people more famous and well-known, while hate only makes people more shameful and infamous.
When should a prince inflict the penalty of death?
It serves to reinforce his idea that in order to keep the peace, leaders must resort to cruelty sometimes. Also, taking someone's life must be reasonable and prudent.
What should a prince always refrain from taking, and why?
He must constantly resist taking and abstain from actions like stealing and excessive taxing, which needlessly irritate the public.
In what particular circumstance should a prince “pay no heed being called cruel”, and why?
A good leader keeps everyone together and loyal while ignoring criticism.
Step-by-step explanation:
This is only my opinion, change some words and avoid plagiarism. :)