Role of War in Society

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.

One of the main points More focuses on in Utopia is the kings powers and how he uses them. Kings have the ability to make war, but More questions why anyone would want to go to war in the first place by saying "I don't see how it can be in the public interest to prepare for war, which you needn't have unless you want to, by maintaining innumerable disturbers of the

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

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).

Machiavelli believes that the foundation of a strong Nation State is a strong army. According to The prince the most important part of being a leader is studying the art of war. Staying in power is a main point in the prince and to stay in power a Prince must conduct a strong army. The Prince proclaims not only do you need a strong army but also you need to be in total control of that army. “Prince ought to have no other aim or thought, nor select anything else for his study, than war and its rules and discipline; for this is the sole art that belongs to him who rules, and it is of such force that it not only upholds those who are born princes, but it often enables

Machiavelli wrote “A prince, therefore, must not have any other object nor any other thought, nor must he take anything as his profession but war, its discipline; because that is the only profession which befits one who commands;” He discussed that a Prince’s duty is war and only war. This lead to the second issue, war, which existed as long as the existence of human kind, as I am writing this essay there are still wars going on all over the world. According to

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

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

According to Machiavelli, war should be a profession of a prince. He suggested a prince to think about arms than personal luxuries, and he said being disarmed would make him to be despised. However, Lao Tzu said, 'Violence, even well intentioned, always rebounds upon oneself'. He suggested a leader not to force anyone because the outcome will result in revenge. He believed that if a person does not harm others, they will not harm the person as well. Furthermore, they had different ideas of preparing war. Machiavelli encouraged a prince to train himself in peace time more than in time of war, and Lao Tzu said, 'No greater wrong than preparing to defend yourself'. It is evident that Machiavelli emphasized on preparing war all the time, but Lao Tzu did not even mention about preparing

In the Prince, Machiavelli writes that it is "better to be both loved and feared." (The Prince) Machiavelli describes how it is important to be seen as powerful to your subjects, but you should not be so evil that your subjects may actually want to rebel. In Utopia, More wants a government where the leaders try to do their best to bring happiness to all of the country. The Prince comes from the notion that you must have complete psychological control over your people to really be able to have power. In Utopia, the leaders' important goal is for everybody to be happy and satisfied. Only this would bring a peaceful and prosperous society.

Plato’s object was the creation of a utopian society--a civilization that abhorred war and centered itself upon moral virtue and honor. He saw war as evil; and evil was merely the failure of justice. He believed that there should be a standing army to defend the republic but that war for the sole purpose of waging battles was highly unjust. His utopian

Niccolò Machiavelli was brave enough to give the leaders of his day a how-to guide. In this work, The Qualities of a Prince, we are given a point-by-point description of what a leader should do to effectively lead his country. Machiavelli explains that, because leadership is (obviously) a position of command, "[war] is the only profession which benefits one who commands. " (p. 33)

Niccolò Di Bernardo Dei Machiavelli was one of the first major philosophers to pull away from the religious side of reason. Breaking away from traditional views and values he became a modern thinker by looking at power through naturalistic and realistic senses. Unlike the views of Hobbes, Machiavelli had a contrasting view on the idea of a sovereign. Where Hobbes would explain a ruler to be fair and never unjust towards his people, Machiavelli would suggest a Prince must be ruthless, but not hated. Machiavelli also believed “A prince ought to have no other aim or thought, nor select anything else for his study, than war and its rules and discipline; for this is the sole art that belongs to him who rule.” The art of war was something Machiavelli believed a prince should always have in mind at all times. He believed that it was through war that one

Famous Prussian military theorist Karl von Clausewitz said that "war is the continuation of politics by other means." which supports the idea of war as a culturally influenced situation that is determined by the political power in control. War is a tool in the arsenal of a successful power to use when debating and non-violent persuasion fail to achieve the goals of the power. War is always waged for a reason, war is not a random act of slaughter. It is consequential to both the attacking and defending parties and no matter the amount of casualties, war comes with a heavy price. The financial cost of war is astronomical and the effects of war can be damaging to the political power. This is why war is usually a secondary resort instead of an impulsive decision coming from instinctive biology and not rationale. Biology has shown us that we do have reflexive, self defense mechanisms built in that serve the purpose of defending us from predators. But instead of fighting for a cause initiated out of respect for our self defense, we find these mechanisms being manipulated by the political power in order to gain public support for a war waged for entirely calculated reasons and not based on emotional expression. Denis Diderot, a French philosopher, elaborates on war as a