Lao Tzu And Niccolo Machiavelli Summary

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.

He discusses that the prince have military knowledge, love and fear, trustworthiness, and good and bad reputations. He deeply believes in the art of war. "...a prince must not have any objective nor any thought, nor take up any art, other than the art of war and its ordering and discipline; because it is the only art that pertains to him who commands. And it is of such virtue that not only does it maintain those who were born princes, but many times makes men rise to that rank from private station; and conversely one sees that when princes have thought more of delicacies than of arms, they have lost their state." He also writes about whether it is better to be loved or feared, stating that it is best to be feared, but not hated. Love can change in an instant, and it is better to always have control, even if the prince must be feared. Patriotism and dedication to the state was also a very important aspect. In conclusion, Machiavelli strived for power and strength by any means possible. Through violence and fear, the end result would be worth it to him.

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

In the fourteenth century, the humanist philosopher Francesco Petrarch wrote a letter entitled How a Ruler Ought to Govern His Sate. Nearly a century later, another philosopher by the name of Niccolo Machiavelli wrote a book about governing, The Prince. The two documents show many similarities in content and theme. While the two wrote in similar subject matter, it is clear that these philosophers possess distinctly different viewpoints on how a ruler should govern. In Petrarch’s How a Ruler Ought to Govern His Sate and Machiavelli’s The Prince, both philosophers possess different opinions on how a ruler ought to govern. In particular Machiavelli pays specific attention to the importance of

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).

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 is not exactly polar opposite of Machiavelli, although he is close. He believes that man in a state of nature is generally good and not greedy. What makes man greedy is overemphasis on material

When reading both of these stories, I was always hung up on what exactly I thought a good leader is. Lao-Tzu states in his work, “When the Master governs the people are hardly aware that he exists.” His proposal says that the ruler shouldn’t inform the people about all of his ideas, and that the less they know the happier they will be in the end. This idea of a leader, who is somewhat under the radar, completely contradicts Machiavelli’s idea, that a ruler must be feared to be effective. As I thought more about this I felt as if I was slightly more in sync with Machiavelli’s viewpoints. People today need to have an authority figure in which they fear so that they will obey laws. In a world filled with crime, more fear might lead to less law breaking. But is fear the only trait one should have to be an effective leader? In

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,

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

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.

People are unlikely to overthrow a ruler that they fear, for they dread the punishments of failure. If the ruler is not feared by the people, he will eventually upset enough of them that they will rise up against him. They will overthrow him because of his perceived weakness, and his name and image will be shamed in the eyes of both his government and his people. Machiavelli believes that the state is completely separate from the ruler’s private life. No matter how immoral or heartless the ruler may be in private, only his public image is important. A ruler can be a terrible, sleazy person on their own time, and when not involved with matters of the state, but at any time when the leader is involved in politics and the state, you cannot afford to injure the image of the ruler or else anarchy will develop. With this kind of rebellion can come revolution, war, and many other tragedies that could be otherwise avoided.

When reading Niccolo Machiavelli’s The Prince, one can’t help but grasp Machiavelli’s argument that morality and politics can not exist in the same forum. However, when examining Machiavelli’s various concepts in depth, one can conclude that perhaps his suggested violence and evil is fueled by a moral end of sorts. First and foremost, one must have the understanding that this book is aimed solely at the Prince or Emperor with the express purpose of aiding him in maintaining power. Therefore, it is essential to grasp his concepts of fortune and virtue. These two contrary concepts reflect the manner in which a Prince should govern while minimizing all chance and uncertainty. This kind of governing demands violence to be taken, however this