Throughout the centuries, this world has maintained various leaders that have ruled far and wide, or a small domain. All of which had various roles, morals, goals, etc.; some infamous, some admired, and some truly despised. There is a vast amount of written works pertaining to become a great leader. Lao-Tzu and Niccoló Machiavelli are prime examples of people who have written works about the topic, yet their views and ideas differ greatly. Yet, despite their opposite views, their intake and thoughts about leadership, both Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli’s indulge logically and carefully on a more personal and human level.
The topic where Machiavelli and Lao-Tzu’s views do not coincide is war, it’s where Machiavelli believes that “knowing” war is insanely important and essential to becoming a leader whereas Lao-Tzu believes war is a sad, unvictorious thing that is only
…show more content…
Lao-Tzu desires a leader who confides in his people, to make them feel a part of the government, and to not control them. The logic and moral being: if everything is left to be do what it 's supposed to, everything will fall into place and a leader will not over occupy his or herself with duties that 's not meant for them. Not only that, but Lao-Tzu mentions what it would be like if an area is governed in a specific way, “If a country is governed with tolerance, the people are comfortable and honest. If a country is governed with repression, the people are depressed and crafty (Verse 58, pg. 29).” Lao-Tzu, in comparison to Machiavelli, thinks a compassionate, involving leader befits governing a country. However, in an earlier verse, Lao-Tzu mentions that when the “Master” governs, the best kind of leader is one who hardly exists to the people, the other is one who is loved, and one who is feared, but the worst is one who is despised. Meaning that Machiavelli and Lao-Tzu are on the same spectrum when it comes to the quality of a good
When comparing Tao-te Ching to The Prince there are numerous differences. The authors of these two documents had almost completely opposite ideas of how a ruler should behave and how a government should be run. One believed that the ruler could accomplish the most by doing the least; the other believed that by controlling how the public perceived a ruler was what would make him a success or a failure. Machiavelli believed that to rule the prince must do things that would win approval with his people, and that the prince must always keep and maintain arms to remain in power. On the other hand Lao-tzu believed that the master ruled with as little involvement as possible, he believed that to “not do” would have the greatest effect, and that to use arms as only a last resort. With just these two examples it becomes clear how different the authors viewed leadership and government.
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
However, it is because both Lao Tzu’s and Machiavelli’s ideas were too extreme, that the most effective government is to combine both ideas from the two philosophers in order to balance out. Lao believed that the less the leader or government intervenes; the happier the people. While Machiavelli believed that the importance of gaining power and holding the state is to be held at any cost. Hence a ruler who is both aggressive and passionate in moderation will be able to gain the trust of people, win their loyalty, and have the ability to stay in the government.
Lao-Tzu's political philosophy falls into more of an individualistic and carefree branch of politics, in which the way of governing is by not forcing issues. He believes that the ruler should not act powerful, and because of this, he will be respected. Lao-Tzu also believes that the best leader is one that is loved, not feared. Instead of holding power and forcing rules, Lao-Tzu wishes to teach simplicity, patience, and compassions. He views the latter as "the greatest treasures" and if one has the three qualities, one will be a better person.
In “Tao-te Ching” by Lao-tzu he believes that the government should leave the people alone. The people will work things out by themselves. He also believed in not doing too much for them, as he says in his literary work, “The Ancient Masters didn’t try to educate the people, but kindly taught them to not-know,” (pg 27 ¶ 50). In Machiavelli’s work, “The Prince” he believes that the government, or the Prince, should always be concerned with battle, and that it was a big role in the government. The government, in Machiavelli’s view, should try to control their subjects. He plays with the idea of being feared rather than being loved. Being fears is much better in his opinion. If the ruler or the government is loved, then there are a lot of obligations in line with that. If they people fear the government, then the subjects will fear the consequences of not following. However, they both agree on the subject of improvement. Machiavelli and Loa-tzu believe that if the people aren’t prosperous, the government has failed. In an article found in The Washington Post it tells of how the government should do its best for the sake of the people. In it, it says, “We will keep moving forth in order to do what we do best,” (Washington). In other words, the government should try to help the people to move
Machiavelli and Rousseau, both influential philosophers, were innovators of their time. They represented different ideas on what the state of nature and government should consist of, having both similarities and differences. Their viewpoints evolved from different time periods, which make them unique. Machiavelli, the sixteenth century Italian diplomat expressed, that a Prince should be unethical in achieving power. He argued that to be successful in politics certain qualities were of importance and ethics could not stand in the way. Machiavelli stated that a Prince’s power should be maintained in being feared and loved, and possessing control over the people. Rousseau on the other hand was an eighteen century philosopher and writer. Unlike Machiavelli, his view’s on political and modern philosophies were influenced by the French Revolution. Rousseau believed in a legitimate government that was elected by a civil society based on social contract. Both philosophers wanted to develop an ideal structure for the development of a functional society. They both had different tactics in doing so but aim for the same thing, a great society. Rousseau’s approach seems most persuading to me in the sense that is based off a group of people coming together and deciding what is best for the majority. Machiavelli influenced Rousseau in the context of political economy and social contract.
Machiavelli believes that leaders do not have to be loved. In his text he states “Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one
In The Prince Niccolò Machiavelli argued a leader shouldn’t be virtuous in the classical sense, such as unconditional kindness rather it was their job to be an effective leader as possible for the state. Machiavelli laid out some general rules for rulers that still hold true for modern leadership.
Machiavelli gave good advice for Renaissance rulers and for leaders today. Furthermore, it is important for a leader/ ruler to be able to get involved with the people that they rule. If they become involved the ruler will be seen as respected and even trustworthy. It is important to gain the trust of the people that you are in charge in, they expect you to make the right decision. It is necessary for a leader to put aside irrelevant matters and focus on the bigger situations, they should focus on the bigger picture that could eventually affect their peoples life. A good leader knows when he has done wrong and made a mistake, a great leaders knows that they did wrong and they also fix the problem to insure that it will not happen again. That
The author discusses what he feels the role of a leader should be, the restrictions and the privileges that should be given to the people. There are various views on this particular passage even among Americans. Lao-Tzu feels that taking action in order to make people feel safer and ensure their well being will actually be detrimental; although I agree with Lao-Tzu's tactics, most Americans hold differentiating views.The more restrictions you place on a people, the less moral the people will be. Americans encounter this on a daily basis. American society was founded upon and is enraptured by rebellion. The early American colonists revolted against the English government.
Lao Tzu a Chinese Philosopher who is said to be the author of the Tao Te Ching written as a guide for rulers. Niccolo Machiavelli, Italian Renaissance writer who lived 2,000 years after Tzu wrote The Qualities of the Prince as a guide for maintaining respect from the governed as well as redemption in the eyes of ruler of Florence, Lorenzo di Piero de’ Medici. Leadership qualities keep a society in order. Without a leader a society might collapse, therefore people have endeavored to be admired or feared leaders, but never both. These two authors and philosophers have significantly different ideas of how to be a leader.
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 contrary, Machiavelli advocates the necessity for a successful leader, or prince, to take control of his endeavors, and the skills or qualities necessary to maintain power, at any cost. Since these thinkers both make an inquiry to what is essentially the same dilemma of effective leadership, it becomes almost a natural progression to juxtapose the two in an effort to better understand what qualities a prosperous leader must possess. In this sense, when we utilize the rhetorical strategy of compare/contrast as a vehicle to transport us to a more enlightened interpretation of Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli’s conclusions, it becomes apparent that Machiavelli’s effort is much more successful as his practicality serves its purpose much more effectively.
If more laws are in place, that only allows the people to find more ways to break those laws. Confucius and Laozi seem to concur on that aspect of the role of government. However, a key difference is embedded in wei; which refers to the interference of authority. If people are to behave according to wu-wei, they are acting naturally; and by conducting themselves in such a manner, order will arise spontaneously, without the need for a known leader. Laozi states that people should “Act, but through nonaction” (Laozi 63). If people force themselves to act in certain ways, such as the ways of those whom Confucius would say are their leaders, then they are acting in a manner that is unnatural. However, if people practice the concept of wu-wei with sincerity, then their behavior is spontaneous and effortless; just as water flows naturally around objects that are in its
Likewise, Plato’s philosopher king also uses the same concept but calls it “Justice” or “Good.” Similarly, to Machiavelli, who needs his Prince to have virtù to lead the people, Plato necessitates that his king use philosophical knowledge and emphasize justice to guide the unenlightened masses towards a just and stable society as well. When Socrates discusses the allegory of the cave, he remarks how when rulers must descend “to the general underground abode” where the masses “reside,” the ruler “will see a thousand times better than [the inhabitants of the cave]…because [the ruler has] seen the truth about things admirable and just and good” (Plato 520c). Plato believes that by seeing beyond the cave, and understanding the situation he exists in, the leader will have the appropriate ability to bring foresight and intelligence when making difficult decisions. While Plato’s and Machiavelli’s means of educating, changing and legitimizing political communities differ, the two philosophers share the same goal of using the benevolent dictators’ attained knowledge to lead the masses and their governments to prosperity and good fortune.
What is leadership, and how do we attain the best and most effective leaders? These are questions that are as old as civilization itself. Bass (1974) wrote that, “from its infancy, the study of history has been the study of leaders” (as cited in Wren, 1995, p. 50). Since the study of history in the West is commonly held to begin with Herodotus of ancient Athens, it is not surprising that we should examine the historical views of leadership through the eyes of two titans of Greek thought: Plato and Aristotle.