Both Machiavelli and Han Feizi are well known for the harsh pragmatism of their political regimes. In order to ascertain the security of the state, the apparatus of the ruler, and the ruler himself, they argue that the head of state must maintain a cruel yoke over his subjects. Otherwise, clemency might be mistaken for weakness, compassion for stupidity, and the budding state will be quickly overthrown by a crueler or more powerful sovereign, or riven by the internal strife of squabbling factions. Despite this fundamental concordance, the two philosophers differ over the extent of their respective regimes. This paper will interrogate the key differences in Machiavelli’s and Han Feizi’s conceptions of citizen, state, and the extent of sovereign power. By examining key chapters in The Prince and in Han Feizi’s Basic Writings, this paper will argue that Machiavelli’s prescriptions to a budding prince are consistently informed by a wariness for the people, whose power must be respected while simultaneously delimited. By contrast, Han Feizi sees the citizen as nothing more than an instrument for the use of the state, his power or his views …show more content…
The guiding conception is one of enlightened self-interest, where the ruler plays certain roles in order to attain his goals amongst other power players like himself. Without these roles, he is unbalanced, and therefore weak. The man who is brave but fails to see the deception of his opponents will fall into ruin, just as the deceiver will be destroyed if he cannot back up his schemes with action. Interestingly, these dual aspects are largely for inculcating fear amongst enemies, rather than for keeping the people in abject
Machiavelli’s, “The Prince” is the ideal book for individuals intending to both govern and maintain a strong nation. Filled with practical advice, he includes numerous religious references to support his claims. He devotes a chapter within the book to speak about the ancient founders of states. In the chapter called, “On new principalities that are acquired by one’s own arms and by virtue”, Machiavelli discussed the importance of a prince to have their own talent in governing a nation, rather than having relied on fortune to rule. The latter is a risk no leader should take and he cited past leaders as a guide for both the current and future princes.
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.
In comparing and contrasting the governmental philosophies of the great thinkers Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli, I have found a pleasant mix of both of their ideas would be the best for America today. Lao-Tzu’s laisse-faire attitude towards the economy, as well as his small scale military is appealing to my liberal side, while Machiavelli’s attitude towards miserliness which causes low taxes appeals to the right wing. These great thinkers contradict the popular saying “all great thinkers think alike.” They have several ideas, such as taxes, that are the same, while other ideas, like the involvement of government in citizens' everyday lives are totally opposite. I shall start with the ideas of Machiavelli, then move on to Lao-Tzu’s, and finally a comparison and application into American life.
Machiavelli believes that a government should be very structured, controlled, and powerful. He makes it known that the only priorities of a prince are war, the institutions, and discipline. His writings describes how it is more important for a prince to be practical than moral. This is shown where he writes, "in order to maintain the state he is often obliged to act against his promise, against charity, against humanity, and against religion" (47). In addition, Machiavelli argues that a prince may have to be cunning and deceitful in order to maintain political power. He takes the stance that it is better for the prince to be feared than loved. His view of how a government should run and his unethical conduct are both early signs of dictatorship.
Machiavelli’s views were drastically different from other humanists at his time. He strongly promoted a secular society and felt morality was not necessary but stood in the way of a successfully governed state. He stated that people generally tended to work for their own best interests and gave little thought to the well being of the state. He distrusted citizens saying, “In time of adversity, when a state is in need of its citizens, there are few to be found.” In his writings in The Prince, he constantly questioned the citizens’ loyalty and warned for the leaders to be wary in trusting citizens. His radical and distrusting thoughts on human nature were derived out of concern for Italy’s then unstable government. Machiavelli also had a s...
Niccolò Machiavelli was a man who lived during the fourteen and fifteen hundreds in Florence, Italy, and spent part of his life imprisoned after the Medici princes returned to power. He believed that he should express his feelings on how a prince should be through writing and became the author of “The Qualities of a Prince.” In his essay, he discusses many points on how a prince should act based on military matters, reputation, giving back to the people, punishment, and keeping promises. When writing his essay, he follows his points with examples to back up his beliefs. In summary, Machiavelli’s “The Qualities of a Prince,” provides us with what actions and behaviors that a prince should have in order to maintain power and respect.
An effective leader is one that understands that a society must evolve and revolutionize, in order to meet the needs of the state that are of immediate concern. As a society we are able to build off prior knowledge of once existing methods of living, and adjust them to meet current demands. Both Thomas Hobbes, and Nicolo Machiavelli’s concept, and perception of an ideal sovereign remains present in current forms of government. Machiavelli’s ideas in The Prince indicate that it is simple for any civilian to gain, and maintain power
The fortuna-virtù dichotomy has become one of the most fundamental aspects of Machiavelli’s view of the political. The first concept refers to the way in which would-be rulers deal with the contingent occurrences that take place in realm of the political. The second principle is related to the ability to interpret and control the social environment in order to advance the interest of the state and the personal standing of the ruler (Bobbitt, 2013: 43). Most importantly, the existence of virtù entails the possession of a set of skills that are geared towards preserving the viability of the state, even if the means to attain it require the pursuit of amoral actions (Fischer, 2000: 54). This essay begins by outlining the description
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...
A longstanding debate in human history is what to do with power and what is the best way to rule. Who should have power, how should one rule, and what its purpose should government serve have always been questions at the fore in civilization, and more than once have sparked controversy and conflict. The essential elements of rule have placed the human need for order and structure against the human desire for freedom, and compromising between the two has never been easy. It is a question that is still considered and argued to this day. However, the argument has not rested solely with military powers or politicians, but philosophers as well. Two prominent voices in this debate are Plato and Machiavelli, both of whom had very different ideas of government's role in the lives of its people. For Plato, the essential service of government is to allow its citizens to live in their proper places and to do the things that they are best at. In short, Plato's government reinforces the need for order while giving the illusion of freedom. On the other hand, Machiavelli proposes that government's primary concern is to remain intact, thereby preserving stability for the people who live under it. The feature that both philosophers share is that they attempt to compromise between stability and freedom, and in the process admit that neither can be totally had.
The most astounding aspect of The Prince is Machiavelli’s view that princes may indeed, be cruel and dishonest if their ultimate aim is for the good of the state. It is not only acceptable but necessary to lie, to use torture, and to walk over other states and cities. Machiavellianism is defined as “A political doctrine of Machiavelli, which denies the relevance of morality in political affairs and holds that craft and deceit are justified in pursuing and maintaining political power (Def.)” This implies that in the conquest for power, the ends justify the means. This is the basis of Machiavellianism. The priority for the power holder is to keep the security of the state regardless of the morality of the means. He accepts that these things are in and of themselves morally wrong, but he points out that the consequences of failure, the ruin of states and the destruction of cities, can be far worse. Machiavelli strongly emphasizes that princes should not hesitate to use immoral methods to achieve power, if power is necessary for security and survival.
“The Prince”, by Niccolo Machiavelli, is a series of letters written to the current ruler of Italy, Lorenzo de’ Medici. These letters are a “how-to” guide on what to do and what not to do. He uses examples to further express his views on the subject. The main purpose was to inform the reader how to effectively rule and be an acceptable Prince. Any ruler who wishes to keep absolute control of his principality must use not only wisdom and skill, but cunning and cruelness through fear rather than love. Machiavelli writes this book as his summary of all the deeds of great men.
Machiavelli discusses assertive and bold ideas in “The Prince,” revealing his radical and courageous nature. His treatise is deceptively self-soliciting, because he disguises his extreme notions behind a veil of feigned expertise. His frank approach makes him appear confident and deserving of the utmost respect; however, he cautiously humbles himself by pouring immense flattery for the ruling prince into his work and, in doing so, assures protection for himself and his notorious ideas.
Machiavelli in his famous book “The Prince” describes the necessary characteristics for a strong and successful leader. He believes that one of the most important characteristics is to rule in favor of his government and to hold power in his hands. Power is an essential aspect of Machiavelli’s theory, and a leader should do whatever it takes to keep it for the safety of his country because “the ends justifies the means.” To attain and preserve the power, a leader should rather be feared than loved by his people, but it is vital not to be hated. As he states, “anyone compelled to choose will find far greater security in being feared than in being loved.” If a leader is feared, the people are less likely to revolt, and in the end, only a threat of punishment can guarantee obedienc...
Notwithstanding the two philosophers’ different views on abstract concepts, Machiavelli’s virtù to fortuna is comparable to Plato’s Justice to Good. Each philosopher grants his ruler with a specific trait that deviates from the leader’s acquired knowledge of abstract concepts. Under their beliefs, the best ruler is the one who conforms to this virtuous trait--for Plato, Justice (Plato 519b-c), and for Machiavelli, virtù (Machiavelli, Prince 29). These traits then extend to a multitude of characteristics that define the careful instruction both philosophers laid out and that will allow the leader to directly change society into a worthy political