Well Balanced Leadership: An Ideal Way to Approach Humanity Essay

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

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

Machiavelli and Socrates agree on very little. While an initial reading of the two may elicit some comparisons, the goals of their respective philosophies rely on different foundations, and would therefore culminate in very different political results for society. Socrates would likely see in the Prince a selfish ruler, while Machiavelli would see in Socrates a dangerous idealist whose ideas would lead to instability and the death of the state in which these ideas were implemented. Machiavelli’s philosophy of the Prince would not satisfy Socrates because instead of focusing on right action, the Prince is encouraged to put political expediency and self-preservation above all else. In addition, the type of political system that Machiavelli’s

Machiavelli believe that fear allows a ruler to be in power, but does not mean they he is hated. Whereas love can lead to hatred because a ruler should not inspire love in others because they will turn against them once they do not fear their

To begin, Alexander the Great is an example Machiavelli uses himself. He was a King of Macedonia who managed to conquer much of Europe and maintain that land. In The Prince, Machiavelli says no leader in his principality is complete without being prepared. Militaries are needed and expecting the worst is necessary for a leader. Alexander the Great exemplifies qualities of a leader because he “actively increase(d) his resources in a way that they be made available in difficult times” (Machiavelli 24). Instead of being idle in prosperous times, one must be proactive and prepare for attack. Wiseness is a trait Alexander the Great had. Secondly, Theodosius the II had virtù in a way that made his kingdom prosper. He was balanced in understanding politics and military action. By managing to prevent the collapse of his empire and becoming the longest running Emperor in Rome, he was successful because of a agglomeration of his values making an idea virtù. Theodosius II was diplomatic yet forceful. Thirdly, Korea’s division has created two leaders, Kim Jong Un and Moon Jae-In, who demonstrate both virtù and the founder’s interpretation of virtù. The two leaders are like night and day; one of them is harsh and impulsive, whereas the other has diplomacy and compassion. Despite a war and years of feuding, the two have managed to arrange to sit down and end the war. In the past, at least one of the countries have been refusing to

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

Since the being of time, humans have sought out law, or government. Governments have been set in place all throughout the world to try to maintain peace and order. As easy as it sounds, governments can be demolished without the right leader. However, that is the catch, what makes a good leader? Niccolo Machiavelli’s “The Qualities of the Prince” and Lao-Tzu’s “Tao-te Ching” gives some ideas on how a leader should control their government. Although Machiavelli’s and Lao-Tzu’s ideas do not quite go hand and hand, there are some similarities. They both spoke similarly on how people should feel about their leader. Lao-Tzu views one of the best qualities of a leader is being loved by his people. On the other hand, Machiavelli believes the best is to be loved and feared, but sense he thinks that is impossible he had rather just be feared. Machiavelli and Lao-Tzu are more opposite than alike. According to Machiavelli, war should be a profession of a prince. He suggested a prince to think about war all the time and know the surroundings constantly. However, Lao-Tzu suggests a leader not to force war on anyone because the outcome will result in revenge and not to waste time preparing for war. Also, they had different views on what to do with their money. Machiavelli insisted on saving his income for preparation of war, whereas Lao-Tzu believed in sharing his money throughout the people.

The debate on how people should rule has been going on since the dawn of time. Many agree and many disagree but they all agree that we should have a ruling force of some kind but what and how much has been very controversial. Niccolo Machiavelli and Socrates were two very important and revolutionary political philosophers for their time. Machiavelli’s “The Prince and the Discourses” outlines Machiavelli’s ideal prince and what a prince should do in power. Plato writes about the trial and death of Socrates and what he says about how people are supposed to act as well as how society should be changed. Socrates if he read Machiavelli’s concept of an

Lao-Tzu in china is much respected and as is his text. Having this power gives him great honor in his country. William R. Van Buskirk says this about Lao-Tzu Master when he wrote his text, “And it did not occur to these to think of their master as a great social leader.” William explains just how at first people didn’t know how popular he was at first but he is a great leader. In the text A World of Ideas, you see just how Lao-Tzu’s people follow what he says because he is just that powerful. Machiavelli in this sense is the same way, in his text he thinks being feared is the way to lead and by making people fear you, you have to power to lead. John Gatt-Rutter says it perfect just how powerful Machiavelli was, “The Prince is a concise and powerful tract on monarchies written by a convinced republican.” As John states Machiavelli is very powerful and so is his text

Finally one major difference is that Machiavelli believes that the ruler should always keep arms and be ready to fight off a threat. Lao-tzu has the idea that the only need to keep arms is for a last resort when all other options have been exhausted. This is an enormous difference; The Prince gives the idea that by not maintaining a military and a willingness to fight the ruler may be over thrown by either another country or by his own people. Lao-tzu gives the idea that if you rule properly you will not need the weapon except in the most extreme circumstances. He also gives the idea that if a ruler tries to rule by force another force opposing the ruler will come to him.

There are many philosophies and theories on how to become a good leader, and how to govern the people. Many books and pamphlets have been forged and published, and the philosophies, that are contained in these books, have been studied and taught by the most noble of men, but more importantly written by them. When analyzing the readings, of these authors, there are countless differences and similarities; the differences usually outweigh the similarities because the man/or woman indicted their specific ideologies, that they thought, a good leader should follow and maintain. Since there are so many philosophies on how to become a good leader in both Niccolo Machiavelli’s book “The Qualities of a Prince” and Lao Tzu’s book “Tao-te Ching,” they

Lao-tzu founded and wrote about his beliefs in order to guide others that wanted to follow in his path. He described the way of life, and the best way to do it. It was for both his followers, and for future rulers and politicians. He believed that if the people should be governed under Taoism. Like Lao-tzu, Machiavelli wanted to write for his followers, and the leaders that would rule behind him. His writing were ‘instructions’ on how to be a prince, or a ruler of some kind. His writings would be able to be read and followed for centuries to come. Gerald Lee Ratliff is the award-winning author that has depicted Machiavelli’s life through in one of his writings, and said “Machiavelli's purpose was to describe the realities of political life… many modern politicians have read The Prince, and no doubt they have learned something from it. (Ratliff) ” These people weren’t always the best, including followers like Adolf Hitler. These rulers must have listened closely when Machiavelli, in The Prince, said “Since love and fear can hardly exist together, if we must choose between them, it is far safer to be feared than loved.” There were also young princes in the monarchy era that governed their people by the way Machiavelli said to. In both ways, for good or evil, these writers set guidelines for future generations and

A drop of water can break a mountain in half but so can a stick of dynamite. This is how the writings of Machiavelli and Lao Tzu can be tied in together. They both believed that their way of instructing a leader was the best way and for their time period they where right. Lao Tzu being from the 6th century BC and believing in the “Tao-te Ching” in contrast Machiavelli of the 16th century with the holy roman church attacking every Pagan. Both believing in a higher and the both Bibliographies preach two allowed two very different styles of living.

Socrates and Machiavelli were some of the most influential political philosophers in their respective times. Some argue that their view of empowering individuals, whether it be through free speech or ruthless fighting, are quite similar. However, their views of leadership and government do not align. Socrates’ support for free expression and due process makes his view of effective governance far different from Machiavelli’s focus on national security and heavy-handed leadership. As a result, Socrates would not approve of Machiavelli’s preferred form of government.

A comparison between Lao Tzu and Confucius, as well as that between the respective philosophies each of these individuals is believed to have propounded, is fairly natural and, in certain respects, fairly inevitable. Both scholars were believed to have existed during the same time period, from approximately the seventh through the fourth centuries B.C.E. (although it should be noted that there is an overwhelming body of evidence that indicates that Lao Tzu may not have been an actual person, whereas there is little dispute regarding Confucius' tenure on earth as being between 551-479 B.C.E.). Furthermore, the philosophy attributed to each of these individuals has had a profound effect upon the Chinese culture which they were both a part of and helped to propagate; today the effects of that culture and their philosophical maunderings have even had a significant impact upon areas of Western thought. Indubitably, each respective scholar and the line of thinking advocated by him was concerned with establishing a harmony and order with oneself, society, and the external universe. However, the philosophers differed dramatically in the approach they took to achieving these goals. Confucius took a much more systematic, pragmatic approach to achieving this end, as much of his work directly applies to mankind and its relationship with one another; Lao Tzu was much more mystic and abstract in his approach. Due to various political and moralist