Compare And Contrast Lao Tzu Vs Machiavelli

In the year 1531 the famous political philosopher Niccolo Machiavelli’s wrote a treatise entitled The Prince. It explains the proper guidelines for a prince to successfully lead a republic. Although this sixteenth century politician’s main purpose was to unite a separate Italy, his political theories have been taken into deep consideration and are commonly exercised in politics today. If Machiavelli were alive today he would agree that qualities of the current president Barack Obama coincide with his prince-like standards and make him the ideal candidate for the 2012 Presidential Election.

As the rain began to come down in an awkward fashion, as if it were

On the other hand, Lao-tzu admits that being the best leader, partly depends on how people feel about him/her. As he said in his book, “Next best is a leader who is loved. Next one who is feared. The worst is one who is despised.” (Lao-tzu 17) There are many examples of how successful leaders can be when they are being loved by their people. It is a natural act that affects them in being let to stay in power or not. Similarly, governments at the moment face this fact too and as we see throughout the world, governments are being overthrown because of their people’s distaste and hate. That is

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

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

Despite living thousands of years ago, Socrates and Machiavelli were both influential thinkers whose works are still relevant today. These two great thinkers and philosophers wrote about and extensively studied political systems. The influences of their work can still be seen today in constitutions and governments around the world. Were it not for their transcendent works, there is a real chance today’s systems of government would look very different. While no governments today exactly match those advocated for by Machiavelli and Socrates, their writings surely influenced other thinkers later on in history. Both of these philosophers advocated for different leadership structures with the hope of creating fair and long-lasting states.

Socrates, Machiavelli, and Rousseau are three philosophers discussing political ethics from entirely different perspectives. This paper argues that Socrates, Machiavelli, and Rousseau are all idealists regarding their stances on political ethics. First, this paper argues that Socrates is an idealist due his belief that the current government has much more potential than it is currently reaching, and that the government could eventually be changed. Second, this paper argues that Rousseau is an idealist because of his unrealistically positive view of the natural state of humanity and negative view of society. Lastly, this paper argues that Machiavelli is idealistic because of the overwhelming, impossible number of criteria that the Prince

In the Prince, Machiavelli argues that the idea of truth in the government is only a method to manipulate the unsuspecting public. A leader does not need to be truthful as long as the public believes he is. Politics during Machiavelli’s time was much harsher than that of Socrates and his work reflects his cynical history. While Socrates experienced a major change in his home government during his lifetime, Machiavelli witnessed multiple periods of governmental turmoil.

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,

A just and fair world filled with just and fair people does not exist- it is a utopia. This

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.

Socrates and Niccolo Machiavelli were both incredibly influential in the development of Western philosophical thought, specifically in relation to ethics in politics. Machiavelli’s text The Prince, written during a period of political turmoil in Italy, outlines the necessary steps a prince must take to obtain both power and authority. Plato’s The Last Days of Socrates assesses the moral and ethical guidelines an ideal leader should possess through the beliefs and teachings of Socrates. While both texts had similar objectives, their opinions were quite contradictory. Socrates would have found Machiavelli’s concept of the “Prince”, and the government he creates to be both unethical and fundamentally flawed. Socrates places higher value on the maintenance and creation of justice, while Machiavelli stresses the process of obtaining and preserving power, unethical or not. Due to their differences in their ideas of virtue, knowledge, and justice it can be concluded that Socrates would not be supportive of the government in which The Prince proposes.

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.

Machiavelli establishes in his work The Prince that there are two types of government; either republics or principalities, and The Prince will focus on principalities. He states that principalities come in two types; hereditary principalities, and new principalities. Government power therefore comes from fortune or strength, by a state 's own army or along with the army of another. Government requires a strong ruler who uses coercion, but who also knows how to be cunning; someone who can be both “a lion and a fox”. Machiavelli never discusses elections or accountability among leaders, therefore his model is created from manipulation. Locke, in his work The Second Treatise of Civil Government takes a completely opposite stance, denouncing absolute rule and defining political power as the right to make laws for the protection and regulation of property; these laws are backed by the community, for the public good. He favored the social contract between the state and society, and encouraged the concept of dual accountability. The main similarity in opinion over rulers between both theorists claimed elites should be in charge of the state. Machiavelli believed government to be

Who is Lao Tzu? What is the purpose of Tao Te Ching? Why did Lao Tzu write Tao Te Ching? “Lao Tzu was a Chinese philosopher credited with founding the philosophical system of Taoism…He is thought to have lived in the 6th century BEC” (Mark). Lao Tzu’s philosophy of non-action has a great impact on future generations, because it can make the country become peaceful. Tao Te Ching was primarily writing to the rulers and the emperors of that time, he wants all the countries and subsidiary countries in China can coexist together peacefully, hoping that there will be no more wars. The poetic style of Tao Te Ching makes it universal, because it teaches people how to think and to behave well in an manner that can be acceptable and understandable