Compare And Contrast Lao Tzu And Machiavelli

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.

Anywhere you go, there will be a community ruled by a leader. The qualities of leaders play a vital role in the success or failure of a society; if these qualities are effective, it allows the country to be successful and the ruler’s to fulfill the country’s needs. However, the absence of effective leadership qualities result in severe effects towards the country. When comparing the thoughts of Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli, it becomes obvious these two authors have different beliefs on how to be an effective leader. Machiavelli was a historian in Italy, a diplomat, a philosopher, a politician, and a writer during the era of the Renaissance. Lao-Tzu, during the 6th century, was an ancient Chinese philosopher. These two authors approach at almost entirely different positions. For this reason, it is a natural progression to collocate the two in an effort to better understand the qualities a leader should possess. To prove their philosophies, Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli have sought to reach a more complete understanding of each other’s thoughts on the subjects of war and weapons, qualities of leaders and the people, and how to govern.

Ideas on the same topic always seem to differ from person to person. This holds true to the ideas of Machiavelli and Castiglione. The Prince, written by Machiavelli, and The Courtier, written by Castiglione, are both somewhat how-to guides for nobility, royalty, and princes. However, there are many distinct differences among the ideas of Castiglione and Machiavelli. Castiglione's philosophy leads down the path of a well-rounded person; a more peaceful manner. Machiavelli's philosophy is more straightforward and violent, where you should do anything and everything you have to do in order to achieve your goal. Both books and figures were of great importance to society.

Lao-Tzu's "Thoughts from the Tao-te Ching" and Machiavelli's "The Qualities of a Prince" both have the ultimate goal of making better leaders. The tactics that each writer chooses to present as a guide for the leader are almost opposite of each other. Today's American government would benefit from a combination of the two extreme ideas. Lao-Tzu's laissez-faire attitude towards the economy, as well as his small scale, home defense military is appealing to a liberal person. Machiavelli's attitude towards miserliness and lower taxes, while being always prepared for war, would appeal to a conservative person. The writers are in agreement on some issues, such as taxes, but other ideas,

In the United States the right to own a gun is enshrined by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The text of the Second Amendment reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” (Adams, 2004). The founding fathers borrowed this idea from Niccolo Machiavelli, the Italian thinker. He wrote about the weapons necessary for freedom to defend themselves, to hunt, and to protect the state against foreign invasion. For two hundred years, this tradition has become an integral part of American culture that spawned many cultural phenomena that have become the hallmark of the United States. For example, duels in the desert areas of the

Throughout history, it can be argued that at the core of the majority of successful societies has stood an effective allocation of leadership. Accordingly, in their respective works “The Tao-te Ching” and “The Prince”, Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli have sought to reach a more complete understanding of this relationship. The theme of political leaders and their intricate relationship with society indeed manifests itself within both texts, however, both Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli approach this issue from almost entirely opposite positions. Lao-Tzu appears to focus the majority of his attention on letting problems or situations take their course and allowing good to prevail. On the

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.

Since the being of time, humans have sought out law, or government. Governments have been set in place all throughout the world to try to maintain peace and order. As easy as it sounds, governments can be demolished without the right leader. However, that is the catch, what makes a good leader? Niccolo Machiavelli’s “The Qualities of the Prince” and Lao-Tzu’s “Tao-te Ching” gives some ideas on how a leader should control their government. Although Machiavelli’s and Lao-Tzu’s ideas do not quite go hand and hand, there are some similarities. They both spoke similarly on how people should feel about their leader. Lao-Tzu views one of the best qualities of a leader is being loved by his people. On the other hand, Machiavelli believes the best is to be loved and feared, but sense he thinks that is impossible he had rather just be feared. Machiavelli and Lao-Tzu are more opposite than alike. According to Machiavelli, war should be a profession of a prince. He suggested a prince to think about war all the time and know the surroundings constantly. However, Lao-Tzu suggests a leader not to force war on anyone because the outcome will result in revenge and not to waste time preparing for war. Also, they had different views on what to do with their money. Machiavelli insisted on saving his income for preparation of war, whereas Lao-Tzu believed in sharing his money throughout the people.

Lao-Tzu in china is much respected and as is his text. Having this power gives him great honor in his country. William R. Van Buskirk says this about Lao-Tzu Master when he wrote his text, “And it did not occur to these to think of their master as a great social leader.” William explains just how at first people didn’t know how popular he was at first but he is a great leader. In the text A World of Ideas, you see just how Lao-Tzu’s people follow what he says because he is just that powerful. Machiavelli in this sense is the same way, in his text he thinks being feared is the way to lead and by making people fear you, you have to power to lead. John Gatt-Rutter says it perfect just how powerful Machiavelli was, “The Prince is a concise and powerful tract on monarchies written by a convinced republican.” As John states Machiavelli is very powerful and so is his text

There were two concepts when it came to the holocaust and how it was governed. Hannah Arendt believed everything was possible and went into her theory of totalitarianism and total domination. She reveals obscurity and questioned whether the Nazis really achieved total domination. Machiavelli’s concept was The Prince, and how as a leader, one should only have the authority that would finalize every facet and put in action a policy, which would adhere to his best likings. In my concept, I agree with Machiavelli and Arendt when both state a prince should be “feared” and how totalitarianism was used for total domination.

Human nature is what human beings are born to have certain common characteristics in psychology and behaviors that human beings uphold as the common traits of humankinds. Machiavelli and Thomas More were two influential humanists during the period of Renaissance, and both are the authors of The Prince and Utopia respectively. Thomas More and Machiavelli used different ways to address their thoughts on human nature. More created a perfect and equal Utopian community to synchronize Utopians thoughts and human nature; at the same time, Machiavelli taught human beings how to react and deal with the human nature, which they were born with. On one hand, Thomas More used an ideal community with equal and fair social and political approaches to equalize different human nature of the Utopians on the positive perspective; on the other hand, Machiavelli discussed about human nature through his advices to the princes to be flexible enough to go against human nature by sometimes being non-virtuously, yet to fulfill good wills of their people to maintain their power, status and reign.

The Prince by Machiavelli was an advice book that revolutionized peoples view on government rule. Many of this book’s ideas such as statesmanship and war craft as well as goodwill and hatred are still used in governing today. In relation to statesmanship and war craft Machiavelli says that “Since you cannot have good laws without good arms, and where you have good arms, are

Showing emotions can often be seen as being weak, especially at times of war. Nicolo Machiavelli’s leadership book, The Prince from 1512, and Sun Tzu’s strategic guide The Art of War from the 14th century were heavily influenced by war, and constant threats that were looming. At the time only important thing for a leader was to win and to the keep going forward no matter the costs. The goal for both military strategists was to be as effective as possible, in the real world discarding everything that is not practical. According to both Sun Tzu and Machiavelli, a leader has more responsibilities than any normal person and his views on life’s ethics and morals should not be the same. Therefore things that are viewed as strength for a normal

If we look at Machiavelli’s “The prince” it sorts of reminds me Shun Tzu’s “Art of war”. It has similar way of guiding and educating the reader, how war (or in this case politics and ruling of lands) should be done. While reading “The Prince” we can see that the author was not especially interested in ethics and morality. He

Socrates would have been skeptical of Machiavelli’s assertions on how a prince should rule his kingdom. Socrates preferred to question people to understand what should the right thing and philosophy, rather than just studying the actions of past people. From his studying of human behavior, Machiavelli concludes that prince should make decisions with his self- interests in mind, rather than working within what morality and law. As a philosopher who spent his time talking to people, Socrates would disagree with Machiavelli because his advice would lead the prince astray. A prince who follows Machiavelli’s advice is one who is only focused on his reign and longevity of his state, not the best strategies for the people.