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
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 Ching, and not as chaotic as Machiavelli illustrated in Prince.
Perhaps the most distinct differences between Machiavelli's and Lao-Tzu's are their beliefs in how a government should be run. Whereas Machiavelli writes about the qualities a prince should have while instilling a totalitarian government, Lao-Tzu strongly believes that one cannot have total control, so everything should run its course.
Although they share some similarities in ideology, these parallels are greatly overshadowed by the concepts in which Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli diverge. Their primary distinction lies within their view of human nature and it’s role in governing. Lao-Tzu maintains that if we promote a system of governing to the least possible extent, then human nature should manifest a favorable temperance and dictate the direction of society. In fact, Lao-Tzu asserts numerous attempts to illustrate his point that if leaders, “Stop Trying to control” (§ 57, 35), then there is no desire (§ 37, 24), he dwells in reality (§ 38, 29), and “the world will govern itself.” (§ 57, 35) Although this is an extremely optimistic and beneficial ideal, the main problem with Lao-Tzu’s entire philosophy is exactly that, it can only be viewed as a philosophy. Because it appears under the section entitled “Government,” I...
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.
Machiavelli insists that he saves up his own money to prepare for battles and future wars; “for with time he will come to be considered more generous once it is evident that, as a result of his parsimony, his income is sufficient, he can defend himself from anyone who makes war against him, and he can undertake enterprises without overburdening his people” (p.225). Machiavelli says the leader should save up the income received and put it towards the country’s military so when it comes time for war the leaders does not have to tax the people and burden them. Lao-Tzu believes the income he receives should go to all the people instead of saving it for war. “If you want to learn how to govern, avoid being clever or rich. The simplest pattern is the clearest” and he goes on to say, “If you want to govern the people, you must place yourself below them” (p.213). Unlike Machiavelli, Lao-Tzu says the master gives mostly all his money away to the people so he is on the same level as them. Both Machiavelli and Lao-Tzu have good ideas for how to spend their income and it comes down to trying to do what is best for the
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.
Machiavelli believed that, ethics and morality were considered in other categories than those generally known. He does not deny the existence of, but did not see how they can be useful in its traditional sense as in politics and in the government of the people. According to Machiavelli, a man is by nature a political angry and fearful. Machiavelli had no high opinion of the people. It is assumed that a person is forced to be good and can get into the number of positive features, such as prudence and courage. The prince can only proceed gently and with love, because that would undermine the naivety of his rule, and hence and the well-being of the state. He thought that, the Lord must act morally as far as possible, immorally to the extent to
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
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.
Through his many years of experience with Italian politics Machiavelli wrote “The Prince”; a how-to guide for new rulers. We are given descriptions of what a leader should do to effectively lead his country. A leader should be the only authority determining every aspect of the state and put in effect a policy to serve his best interests. These interests are gaining, maintaining, and expanding his political power. Machiavelli’s idea is that a ruler should use a variety of strategies (virtues) to secure his power. Machiavelli lists five virtues that a ruler should appear to have; being compassionate, trustworthy, generous, honest and religious. A ruler should possess all the qualities considered good by other people.
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
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.
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
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