Lao-Tzu vs. 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.

Machiavelli tackles the question “is it better to be loved or feared by people?”. Giving his insight on the matter, it is clear to see the benefits and downside to both. Every prince should desire to be perceived as a kind ruler rather than cruel one. However, he must avoid misusing or overusing his compassion. Cesare Borgia was considered cruel, yet his oppressiveness ended up resulting in peace and unity in Romagna (Machiavelli,trans; W. K. Marriott). Meanwhile on the other hand of mercifulness, when the Florentines tried to avoid cruelty, this allowed Pistoia to be destroyed (Machiavelli,trans; W. K. Marriott). Machiavelli argues once a

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.

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

In comparing and contrasting the governmental philosophies of the great thinkers Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli, I have found a pleasant mix of both of their ideas would be the best for America today. Lao-Tzu’s laisse-faire attitude towards the economy, as well as his small scale military is appealing to my liberal side, while Machiavelli’s attitude towards miserliness which causes low taxes appeals to the right wing. These great thinkers contradict the popular saying “all great thinkers think alike.” They have several ideas, such as taxes, that are the same, while other ideas, like the involvement of government in citizens' everyday lives are totally opposite. I shall start with

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,

People need the government to guide and control them; for they can have freedom. The people need the government to direct and advised them, which will allow them to furish in a free society. Additionally,

Perhaps in his time Lao-Tzu viewed that his interpretation of human nature was entirely possible, but as far as the twenty-first century is involved, the idea that if societies are left unattended we are able to “Trust them” (§ 75, 59) is absurd. It can be argued legitimately that Lao-Tzu’s concepts have been applied and in fact have proven to be extremely effective. For example, a capitalistic, laissez-faire approach to governing, particularly the form advocated by American Republicans. However, cases of removing regulations and adopting the leadership standards Lao-Tzu advises have been strictly applied to market economics, not to each and every facet of government.

Machiavelli argued, through his most notable work The Prince, that is most advantageous for a ruler to maintain appearances of compassion, but act rational and merciless. One of the core principles he repeated several times throughout his book was that although it be best to have both, leaders should value the fear of their subjects over their love. But a ruler had better be careful to not overdo it so as to not create resentment since men cannot be trusted to be loyal through affection: “[i]n general men are ungrateful, fickle, false, cowardly, covetous, dissimulating, hungry for profit and quick to evade danger” (The Prince, 17.4)1. The general

Although the literature of Machiavelli and Lao-Tzu undeniably differ on many subjects, both touch bases on many of the same topics. They share their thoughts on war, people, and being hated. Through Lao-Tzu's calm temperament, or Machiavelli's angered tone, both advisors put forth their opinions clearly and effectively.

Throughout ancient history, there have been a number of ways that human beings have attempted or succeed in governing people. There has been an assortment of religions or philosophical ways that were said to be the best way to lead people, in order to gain power, or whatever their goal might be. Many of these ideas went against each other, saying the other one was wrong. One example of this was Niccole Machiavelli and his philosophical view, through The Prince, that said it was better to be feared than loved as a ruler. Then there is the ancient ‘religion’ of Taoism that was founded by Lao-Tzu. In Religion of the World, it describes the basic virtue of this religion, “Taoists believe that if they

Machiavelli’s and Lao-tzu views on human nature, morality, and their form of writing are very different, but then again, they are individual people from different times. They are not only different, but also similar in multiple ways. A difference people can view between the two is also one is viewed as good and the other bad. Their differences lay with their writing technique as well as their views on human nature and morality. The reason for this is because they are from different times; therefore, the result is their views on their writing technique, human nature, and morality are very different.

The role of a Prince is to gain power and to stay in power leading into having a government focused on every aspect of the community. In the other hand, Tzu preached that the universe would work everything out. Which means that have no government and there is no corruption, if no economics then there is no greed.

You must learn from the past in order to decide what “should be done”. Machiavelli believes man to be selfish and disloyal by nature but they are also ignorant and will refuse to look at their past mistakes in order to look bigger and better. He doesn’t think of humans as naturally good but believes that they can progress and become better people. Based on this he can say that a prince should learn from his past mistakes and look at how others have ruled and either follow what they did do the opposite. A prince should never be too arrogant or conceited but conceited but confident and

However he must not be too kind. A prince who so long as keeps his subjects united and loyal, shouldn’t mind the criticism he gets for being cruel. He gives the example of Borgia, who was considered cruel but managed to unite and reconcile the Romagna. According to Machiavelli, new princes especially cannot avoid being cruel as new states are always full of dangers which may cause the prince to lose power. He says that a prince must not be too trustworthy and naive nor must he be so untrustworthy that he becomes intolerable. On this note, he brings up the famous question of whether it is better to be loved or to be feared. He says that a prince must be both loved and feared and that if this is not possible, it is always better to be feared than to be loved. He says that men are ungrateful,fickle, cowardly and greedy. They will be with the prince as long as the prince benefits them, but they will surely abandon him when there is trouble. This is because people will break the ties of love when it is inconvenient to them, but the fear of punishment will not go away so easily. He says that the princes must be careful not to make himself hated and only feared and he can achieve this by staying away from the citizen’s property and women. People will forget the death of a loved one earlier than the loss of an inheritance