Lao-Tzu And Machiavelli Analysis

To begin, Lao-tzu’s and Machiavelli’s views on the ultimate purpose of government are very different. First of all, Lao-tzu’s idea of the purpose of government is more as a suggestion or a guide. Lao-tzu believes that government should not be a part of people’s personal lives in any way shape or form. He believes in a very simple type of government. He

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.

Throughout The Prince, Machiavelli encourages the idea that a fear leader is a good leader. Machiavelli makes the point that a good leader knows that it is, “far safer to be feared than loved” (Machiavelli 43) because love allows for weakness. It is easy to keep people under control and in line when they fear their leader because they do not want to have to face consequences that come with “doing wrong”. When a leader is loved, some many look at this as a weakness. Those who fear their leader are is less likely to curate rebellions and revolts because they know that their leader is not afraid of applying punishment. When a ruler is too kind to their subjects it leaves them vulnerable and they are easily taken advantage of, which threatens their position. For a good leader should, “desire to be accounted merciful and not cruel”, and needs to,

author of Prince. They are both philosophers but have totally different perspective on how to be a good leader. While both philosopher’s writing is instructive. Lao-tzu’s advice issues from detached view of a universal ruler; Machiavelli’s advice is very personal perhaps demanding. Both philosophers’ idea will not work for today’s world, because that modern world is not as perfect as Lao-tzu described in Tao-te

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

Government is the essential power of a country, which directly influences society because it provides somewhat of a security blank for those who are affected by it. Lao-Tzu’s, “Thoughts from the Tao-te Ching,” along with Niccolo Machiavelli’s, “The Qualities of the Prince,” both discuss multiple characteristics that a leader should possess to be a successful. While their goal is similar, in which they both describe what it takes to become a better leader, their ideas concerning leading are conflicting.

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.

As you can imagine, any government today that exclusively follows the recommendations of either Lao-Tzu or Machiavelli would undoubtedly fail. If Lao-Tzu's philosophy alone is followed, the leaders would leave the state open for an outside attack. On the other hand, if Machiavelli's tactics are used, the leaders would be in a constant state of paranoia, and the people would live in fear. Clearly, we see that no government or leader is

The most obvious difference between Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli are their moral perspectives and beliefs. Lao-Tzu is very mellow and easygoing person. He believes that the best government is one that runs itself, in the sense that the government should have very little control. Lao-Tzu is very passive. In his section titled Thoughts of the Tao-te Ching, Lao-Tzu says, “The world is sacred. It can’t be improved. If you tamper with it, you’ll ruin it. If you treat it like an object, you’ll lose it” (208). This quote strengthens the claim that Lao-Tzu believes in a government with little control. This is most accredited to his religion. He is a person of the Tao, and he is very reliant on the ‘Master’, or the god of Taoism. He believes that the Master controls everything, yet does nothing in the sense that people hardly are aware that the Master exists. Because of his knowledge of the Tao and the expectations of the Master, Lao-Tzu

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

In this paper, I will argue that a leader needs to be beast-like and must break their word when it suits their purpose. It's my position that a leader needs to assume characteristics of a lion to be effective, then I will argue that a leader needs to be cunning like a fox when breaking their word so it serves their purpose. Below I will argue why a ruler assumes characteristics of a lion to rule effectively.

Machiavelli and Lao Tzu’s ideas are at odds with one another’s ideas when government is the matter. Machiavelli believes a Prince should only be concerned with making sure he keeps his throne, doing so by making the people fear against him. Making a name for himself out on the battlefield, and maintaining that reputation. Since he believes that man is evil, greedy and won’t hesitate to overthrow the ruler if it comes to it. As a result would create order and will keep the people from committing crimes due to fear.

In The Prince, Machiavelli explains what a good and successful prince should be like. He advocates a strong, cutthroat authority figure and encourages the winning of power by any means necessary. The main theme in The Prince is that mob rule is dangerous, for people know only what is good for themselves and not what is good for the whole. The common people, in Machiavelli’s view, “are ungrateful, fickle, liars, and deceivers, they shun danger and are greedy for profit; while you treat them well, they are yours”. He believes that these commoners should be

“Machiavelli wrote The Prince to serve as a handbook for rulers, and he claims explicitly throughout the work that he is not interested in talking about the ideal republics or imaginary utopias, as many of his predecessors had done” (Harrison). There is an ongoing debate about which philosopher’s ideas are most correct on the subject of leadership. Two main philosophers come to mind when thinking of this topic and they are Machiavelli with his book The Prince and Plato’s dialogue The Republic. The Republic takes a very theoretical point of view on leadership and portrays life as it should be in an ideal state, whereas Machiavelli’s The Prince, takes a more realistic point of view. Machiavelli is less interested with what things should be