Differences Between Machiavelli And Sun Tzu

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.

Nicolo Machiavelli’s The Prince and Sun Tzu’s The Art of War both both provide directions for leadership with similar goals. The Prince is primarily geared towards providing valuable information about how a ruler of many principalities may govern different populations and acquire new lands. The Art of War provides us with a schematic of the optimal path to victory. This book is instead directed towards generals of powerful militaries with only the goal of winning. Concepts such as Machiavelli’s view of destruction will be contrasted with Sun Tzu’s victory-oriented argument for taking whole and several of their other ideas will be compared. Although Machiavelli and Sun Tzu have different intended audiences, many of their ancient tactics can

“Weapons are tools of fear. A decent man will avoid them.” Lao-tzu is against military action. The only way he is in favor of military action is in the “direst necessity.” And only in the most

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

Lao-Tzu’s stand on war is not what one might expect; he believes that peace has more power than war and that all men with a good set of morals look down upon the men who seek to fight. Along with war being an unnecessary product of compromise, Lao-Tzu view’s weapons as a disgrace as well; this idea is shown on page 209 when he adds, “Weapons are the tools of violence; all decent men detest them.” He later then states, “There is no greater illusion than fear, no greater wrong than preparing to defend yourself, no greater misfortune than having an enemy,” (page 210). Lao-Tzu detests war and sees it as a shame to even take part of the hate that is involved with fighting. On the other hand, Machiavelli suggests that it is fit for a leader to show close to perfect fighting techniques on and off the battlefield. War is shown as a lesson of fortitude for leaders during his time, Machiavelli explains, “Its institution, and its discipline; because that is the only profession which befits one who commands; and it is of such importance,” (page 221). He later discusses, on page 222, how a leader must train in his free time to prepare and become the most powerful fighter of all the men by mentioning, “and in peacetime he must train himself more than in time of war; this can be done in two ways: one by action, the other by the mind.” One can conclude that Machiavelli defines a strong leader through both psychological warfare and hand to hand combat. He also sees war as a learning curve for the men who wish to become a leader; Machiavelli’s understanding off a strong leader

In order to answer this question it is first important to determine the fraises “pro-war” and “anti-war”. The term “pro-war” describes an attitude in which war is desired, necessary or justifiable. The term “anti-war” describes the opposite; war is viewed as immoral and is generally opposed and condemned. This paper will argue that there are grounds in the book to support both proposition.

Government is the essential authority of a country or state, which is directly, affects society because it provides key securities. Two of history’s greatest thinkers Lao-tzu, authors of the Tao-te Ching, and Niccolo Machiavelli, author of The Prince have similar but very contrasting ideas of government, and how people should be governed.

This essay will explore the influences of Sun Tzu in the Second World War. Sun Tzu (544 – 496 BC) was a Chinese general and strategist in times of the Zhou dynasty. His techniques, even today are highly respected. The teachings of Sun Tzu were used not only in Asia and Europe but have also been applied today by the western society.

Unlike what we see in the articles of lao-tzu and Thomas Jefferson. Machiavelli, in comparison, has almost no faith in human nature. He believes a monarch is better be feared than loved. And he believes that people should be strictly controlled by the monarchies. It is like what Hannah Arendt described in total domination, where there is no trust between the elite and the people. Even in some violent way, suppression is acceptable. Different from both lao-tzu and Jefferson. Lao-tzu believes that any kind of war is destructive and unnecessary. Jefferson believes that war fought to defend oneself is destructive but necessary. On the other hand, Machiavelli celebrate the act of war and praise the ones who prepare for war. These ideas seems cruel

Plato and Machiavelli are both theorists that focus on the concept of well-being in regards to the state. However, although their main concentration is the same – the well-being of the state – they vastly differ when it comes to what their stand on morality is, focusing on separate virtues within their books, Republic and The Prince respectively. A virtue is defined as a conformity to a standard of right: morality” or a “particular moral excellence” (Virtue). Plato centres around virtues such as wisdom, courage, temperance and justice whereas, Machiavelli focuses on boldness, adaptation, prudence and foresight. In this paper I will focus on the differences and similarities between Plato and Machiavelli’s accounts of virtue, what virtues each finds valuable for political life and how they contribute to the health of the state. I will also touch on how the theorists’ accounts of virtue deviate from one another and what that tells us about the approaches each takes in regards to the political life.

Throughout the course of history, political philosophy has been dominated by two great thinkers: Niccolo Machiavelli and Socrates. Although both highly influential, Socrates and Machiavelli may not see eye to eye. When it comes to the idea of how an “ideal prince” would act, Machiavelli believes that they should lead through fear and follow a thirst for power, no matter the cost. Socrates, on the other hand, believes that they should lead through morality and have a healthy thirst for knowledge. Overall, these two would not exactly agree on what the actions of a good leader would look like or how a political system should be run.

To look at how Lao Tzu’s philosophy influenced Sun Tzu’s, The Art of War, one must understand the point of view in context with the writers. Eastern philosophy is much different from those of its Western counterparts. The Western world has more of an inner focus on “determinism and moral responsibility.” Ones reasoning, logic, and ethics play a role with the decisions they make. While the Eastern world has more of a focus on the foundational beliefs of “fundamental connectedness”, and “personal liberation”. The

Sun Tzu understood the nature of war as “the province of life or death,” and a “matter of vital importance to the state.”1 I agree. In my own experience, war awakens your primordial instincts and strips you of your self-rationalizations. Sun Tzu defined the character of war when he wrote, “water has no constant form, there are in war no constant conditions.”2 Accordingly, Sun Tzu’s principals of war offer a framework adequate to explain the nature and character of 21st century warfare, which I rationalize as a near-continuous battle of ideologies fought through asymmetric means to advance the values and interests of state and non-state actors.

Lessons from the Sun Tzu theory of war about potential war between Vietnam and China in 21st Century