Comparing Machiavelli And Lao Tzu

Machiavelli wrote “A prince, therefore, must not have any other object nor any other thought, nor must he take anything as his profession but war, its discipline; because that is the only profession which befits one who commands;” He discussed that a Prince’s duty is war and only war. This lead to the second issue, war, which existed as long as the existence of human kind, as I am writing this essay there are still wars going on all over the world. According to

Machiavelli thinks it is better for the prince to be feared than loved. For a prince who is loved will be compassionate towards others, mainly his soldiers. When danger is at bay his men will hold him in the highest regard. Should an attack occur they will very quickly turn their backs on him. He may be viewed as weak and untrustworthy, thus easier to overtake. As he explains, “And men are less hesitant about harming someone who makes himself loved than one who makes himself feared because love is held together by a chain of obligation which, since men are a sorry lot, is broken on every occasion in which their own self-interest is concerned: but fear is held together by dread of punishment which will never abandon you” (p.46). If he is loved rather than hated he can never keep an army of soldiers under his command. However, he must not be so feared to the point he is hated to do so he must not take what does not belong to him, and keep his hands off the wives of his subjects.

Lao-tzu and Machiavelli’s Opposing Viewpoints The qualities a leader possesses plays a very important role in the success or failure of a society. If he favors war and discipline, then it will be a harsh living environment for his people.

An absolute that Machiavelli states for a prince is that they, “ought to have no other aim or thought, nor select anything else for his study, than war and its rules and disciplines” (88).

It is important to recognize not only the strengths of the Tao-te Ching and The Prince, but also the weaknesses. There are some ideas present in these writings that are not practical for a modern American leader to follow. Lao-tzu writes that the best kind of leader is one that the people are hardly aware of; this would be nearly impossible for an American politician. The “Master” described in the Tao-te Ching is honest, humble, compassionate, and reserved. These traits are not what modern politicians strive to be, and are not practical characteristics in a person running for office. As unsettling as it may sound, American presidential candidates cannot be humble; they must prove to the public that they are the best fit for the presidency

Although the literature of Machiavelli and Lao-Tzu undeniably differ on many subjects, both touch bases on many of the same topics. They share their thoughts on war, people, and being hated. Through Lao-Tzu's calm temperament, or Machiavelli's angered tone, both advisors put forth their opinions clearly and effectively.

In addition, Socrates and Machiavelli would disagree on the most important form of education that a Prince should engage in. Machiavelli argues that the only important thing a Prince needs to study is the art of war. He goes so far as to argue that, “A Prince… must not have any other object nor any other thought, nor must he adopt anything as his art but war, its institutions, and its discipline.” He continues by saying that even during peacetime, a Prince needs to occupy his mind and train himself

Being a ruler means having power over others for a particular reason. This reason can mean you are the most intelligent, best fighter, or maybe you were born into the thrown. Whichever way you this was brought upon you, you have values or morals that follow the ruler ship. These morals depict the way you rule and how people follow you by these rules. When in power the ruler just wants to have the best country, in the way they think is the best. You may not be liked by everyone thinking this way but at least you are doing what’s right for your country. Rulers have a huge job, they can’t always please others or do what they think is right. They have to think about the people as a whole and do what’s best for them. Lao-Tzu Master and Machiavelli’s Prince can be compare through: they’re both powerful, their superior to others, and both want the best for their countries.

Lao-Tzu wrote the Tao-Te Ching back in sixth century B.C.E as he was exiling himself to a life of contemplation. Before he left, the gatekeeper convinced him to write down his philosophical thoughts. Machiavelli was an elite who lived in Florence during the late 1400s and the early 1500s. He wrote his instructions, The Prince, during the instability of power within Italy after he was wrongly imprisoned. Both texts give advice on the ways in which to rule a country, but because of the times in which they were written, they promote separate ideas on the role of a leader, the view of humanity, and the way their information should be presented.

How should leaders approach the ideas of peace and war? This question has fascinated those in positions of power for ages. Ancient Chinese philosopher Lao-Tzu believes that war should only take place in the direst of situations and should not be considered virtuous (61; sec. 31). On the contrary, Niccolo Machiavelli, a fifteenth-century Italian philosopher, states, “A prince, therefore, must not have any other object nor any other thought, nor must he take anything as his profession but war…” (86). While Lao-Tzu formulates an ideal approach to war and Machiavelli a practical one, neither one of their strategies would be effective in the real world; leaders must conduct their military with a balance of serenity and brutality.

Throughout ancient history, there have been a number of ways that human beings have attempted or succeed in governing people. There has been an assortment of religions or philosophical ways that were said to be the best way to lead people, in order to gain power, or whatever their goal might be. Many of these ideas went against each other, saying the other one was wrong. One example of this was Niccole Machiavelli and his philosophical view, through The Prince, that said it was better to be feared than loved as a ruler. Then there is the ancient ‘religion’ of Taoism that was founded by Lao-Tzu. In Religion of the World, it describes the basic virtue of this religion, “Taoists believe that if they

The Prince was Machiavelli’s way to write a series of teachings to explain how he thought a successful leader, specifically a Prince should run his kingdom. One of the many topics which he covered in this short collection of essays was the art of warfare. This was focused on in the short but important chapter XVI, titled “What a Prince Should do regarding the Military”. (Page 58-60). Through this chapter, Machiavelli showcases three distinct discipline that a prince or leader should follow to ensure their maintained power and success.

Good Person ​Machiavelli and Lao Tzu have different views on what a “good” leader is considered to be. Machiavelli describes the world as it really is not how the world should be. Lao Tzu describes how the world would be if the right person was in charge and makes the right changes. Both Lao Tzu and Machiavelli present their ideas to the world. ​A famous Machiavelli quote states: “a man who wishes to make a vocation of being good at all times will come to ruin among so many who are not good.”

Is a leader as defined in the Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary, merely one who leads - synonymous with a boss? Or something more? I believe that a leader is much more than that and can be defined in any number of ways. In attempting to define a leader personally, I will use both myself and others as examples.

A leader is someone who will step up in the times of crisis and is able to think and act creatively in a difficult situation according to businessdictionary.com. A leader can also inspire others to be engage and to work together to achieve a common goal.