Lao-Tzu Vs Machiavelli

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.

He placed emphasis on how a prince should do anything to maintain and increase their own powers – it was apparent that he felt the individual needs of a prince in terms of the power and authority was important and that a prince should do whatever he felt necessary to protect the state and as a result it would mean a prince’s position as a ruler was also prodected. [Wheeler, 2011] Machiavelli placed a large amount on the emphasis on the fact that a prince must be seen to be a moral - but he is able act un-morally if it contributes to the good of the state or provides him with more power. He must be loved by the people and he must also be feared in order to maintain his role as a ruler of a state. Machiavelli argued that if a prince cannot be both loved and feared - it is better for him to be feared as more people would be scared to question him and afraid of the consequences that may follow. This results in more power and authority for the prince but at the same time it means that the prince is less accountable. This is a benefit for the prince but no for the people living within the state that Machiavelli is suggesting (Macmillian, 2006)

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

Distinguishing the differences between Lao-Tzu’s Tao-te Ching, written in the early sixth century B.C.E., and Niccolò Machiavelli’s The Qualities of the Prince, composed in 1513, can be shown through major points that both pursue opposing opinions. Whether it is their view of war, their stand on leadership, or even how they believe the ruler should be perceived, Lao-Tzu and Niccolò Machiavelli always seem to be on a different page. Through their pieces of work, one can see how their views differ. Between Lao-Tzu wanting nothing but peace and harmony and Machiavelli seeing a need for power and fear, both are on two very different ends of the spectrum.

While Thoughts From The Tao-te Ching by Lao-Tzu and The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli are both pieces of work that serve as ground rules or guidelines for a ruler on how to rule a country, the two authors’ prepositions vary tremendously. One author takes on a susceptible viewpoint, while another takes on a much more conservative outlook. There are many factors as to why they differ so much. Even though Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli both provide intricate structures as to how rulers should run their state, there are extreme differences between the two.

Taoism was one of the first major systems of beliefs in China, showing us that after an extended period of the focus on building a lucrative government, the people of China were changing and trying new ways of life. This shows a shift in the focus from the strictly governmental ways of Confucianism to the more mystical beliefs of Taoism. With this change of beliefs in China, Confucian ideas such as the need for strictly political knowledge, were partially taken down by Taoism, which cast politics to the side. This altogether allows us to begin to understand the change in period

Deity, there is thus perhaps no real Deity with the capital letter to be equated with the God of Western religion. We have seen that Heaven eventually becomes the term customarily used for the Supreme Ruler, but we now know that behind or beyond heaven, there are the workings of yang and yin which have their source in tao (Thompson, 6). There is nothing distinctively Chinese in the way whereby the forces of nature were personified or the heavenly bodies were believed to exercise a direct influence in human affairs, or the way in which otherwise inexplicable occurrences of disease and other misfortunes were attributed to malignant spirits. The deification of human beings characteristic of both family and folk religion is somewhat more exceptional, although not unique (Thompson, 7). The founder of Taoism is Lao Zi and Chuan Tze, the school advocates the doctrine that the Dao is the course, the principle, the substance, and the standard of all things, to which all of them must conform. Based on the Dao De Jing, Taoism promotes the belief that a person should live a simple life, not to strive for wealth, fame or power, which will only give one worries and trouble. The school favors the political principle of “achieving good government through

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

Refraining from absolute negativity about Lao-Tzu’s work, the Tao does have many redeemable qualities. The emphasis Lao-Tzu places on the attainment of individual happiness is extremely honorable, however this doesn’t detract from the ineffectiveness Lao-Tzu encounters, as he is unable to come to well-grounded conclusion on the means for effective leadership. His advice to politicians is to only interfere when it is an absolute necessity; yet he takes this to a radical extreme advising leaders to pretty much do nothing. His ideas are taken to an extent where if human nature falters, which it

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

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.

The Prince is essentially a guide book on how to acquire and maintain political power. We can think of it as a collection of rules and methods to achieve a level of superior authority. Its main focus is that the ends—no matter how immoral—justify the means for preserving political authority. While some may agree with this mindset of thinking many today dismiss Machiavelli as a cynic. The book shows rulers how it is that they should act to survive in the real world to maintain authority. While Niccolo Machiavelli’s ideas can be radical, they helped to spark a revolution in political philosophy. Although his ideas might have not been completely original, they were very different and unheard of at the time, The Prince, was published. Machiavelli uses many methods to convey his messages including biblical comparisons and of course metaphors. This character can be viewed in several manners. He is almighty and powerful, stopping at nothing to achieve his goals or have his ways. While this quality does qualify him to be a might leader it also raises the question of immorality. How far will one go to maintain order? Would you stop at nothing to achieve this task? Machiavelli shows this by saying, “it is

In this way Lao Tzu's philosophy reached out to political rulers and advised them of how to govern their land. Thus Taoism, in a sense became a sort of political philosophy following these lines: "The Taoist has no ambitions, therefore he can never fail. He who never fails always succeeds. And he who always succeeds is all-powerful."

"Machiavelli identifies the interests of the prince with the interests of the state." He felt that it was human nature to be selfish, opportunistic, cynical, dishonest, and gullible, which in essence, can be true. The state of nature was one of conflict; but conflict, Machiavelli reasoned, could be beneficial under the organization of a ruler. Machiavelli did not see all men as equal. He felt that some men were better suited to rule than others. I believe that this is true in almost any government. However, man in general, was corrupt -- always in search of more power. He felt that because of this corruptness, an absolute monarch was necessary to insure stability. Machiavelli outlined what characteristics this absolute ruler should have in The Prince. One example of this can be seen in his writings concerning morality. He saw the Judeo-Christian values as faulty in the state's success. "Such visionary expectations, he held, bring the state to ruin, for we do not live in the world of the "ought," the fanciful utopia, but in the world of "is". The prince's role was not to promote virtue, but to insure security. He reasoned that the Judeo-Christian values would make a ruler week if he actually possessed them, but that they could be useful in dealing with the citizens if the prince seemed to have these qualities. Another example of Machiavelli's ideal characteristics of a prince