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. 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. 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. Although similarities between Machiavelli and Lao-Tzu may be difficult to detect, their views are both very extreme. Machiavelli believes that the prince should have total control and do anything to gain power; however, Lao-Tzu desires a political system in which everything runs its own course.
Lao-Tzu recognizes what possible actions will result in, and he confides in the people to make them feel apart of the government, rather than controlled by someone who should serve as example. By letting events transpire without attempting to sway them one way or another, a leader displays their understanding that “the universe is forever of control” (verse 30, p. 26) and the people feel more content in an unadministered world. Moreover, Lao-Tzu explains that in order to govern the people without manipulating them, it is best to let them find their own way without conveying superiority. However, Machiavelli disagrees, and through the enforcement of a cold leadership, a ruler is more inclined to keep his subjects and loyal. He believes that unpredictability will elude enemies and subjects from taking advantage of their leader, and he does so by deceiving the people and going back on his word. Machiavelli writes, “without that reputation he will never keep an army united or prepared for any combat” (46). But, Machiavelli is battle-hungry and prefers to be feared rather than loved. In order to indicate where a leader stands among their subjects, Lao-Tzu leads with an easy-going manner, while Machiavelli denotes vicious behavior—both prove to benefit the kingdom, but by producing
Machiavelli sees human nature as a negative, whereas Pico sees human nature as a positive aspect in life. Each of the two has done works in their time of life that expressed their ideas of the man and their actions. One of Machiavelli works includes The Prince and one of Pico’s works in On the Dignity of Man. Each one of these works will be discussed further. As for an overview of the two men, they both have views that are completely opposite. One believes that man is selfish, greedy, fraudulent and etc. the other believes that man makes mistakes and things happen for a reason. Do you believe that man can be deceitful but still loving and caring? Or do you believe that man is deceitful and that’s just what they do to get ahead of the game? Some may say they believe in living a life of freedom, and there is no right or wrong way to live, but why wouldn’t there be a right or wrong way? Let’s look further into examples of each of these beliefs.
Machiavelli and Martin Luther were both hugely influential and controversial authors who wrote in times of turmoil. Although they had different focuses, Machiavelli's being political and Luther's being religious, they came to many similar conclusions, this may be in part to their reactions to a similar time period. Both authors saw the importance of looking into the past and using history as a tool to learn from. Luther believed more in returning to the past while Machiavelli saw it as a way to use what worked while learning from past mistakes. Their writings are filled with examples from the past to further their arguments. They were especially similar when it came to human free will, the role of God, and on the governing of the secular state. More specifically, both Machiavelli and Luther believed that there was an element of free will that humans could choose to take control of, and therefore determine their own outcomes; although there was an element of either God or Fortune weighing in. Also, when it came to the secular state, although their motives might have been different, they believed in similar actions that needed to be taken. The most interesting dynamic between the two would have to be in relation to the Catholic Church and how both viewpoints create a compellingly different view of the Church.
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...
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
One of the major connections between the two works is the relationship between morality and the state. Both differ widely on where morality comes from and whether the state’s origin is from morality, or whether morality stems from the state. Machiavelli’s view of morality and state are as pragmatic as the rest of his work. He realizes that morality comes before the state, and that without morality, there can be no state. However, he tempers this with the statement that while morality may be what builds the state, morality cannot always be the guiding light for a ruler. When ruling a country, certain situations crop up where the guiding morality of the populace has no place. "But one cannot have all the good qualities, nor always act in a praiseworthy fashion, for we do not live in an ideal world." (Prince 508) For instance, when in contact with another society with different morals, during war, political maneuvering for the good of the people or state, et cetera.
Here is where Machiavelli appears with the Prince. The Prince is the manual of intrusions for those looking to achieve and keep power. Among the values that Machiavelli suggests for this new kind of ruler, we can find, avoiding being too good, and avoiding pity but cultivate cruelty. Machiavelli is not looking for an internal balance; he is looking for the external balance. A balance that portrays a vision of how we want people to see us. He is not aiming for a higher spiritual level; he is looking for a higher level of political stability which translates into power. Machiavelli’s perspective of the Renaissance hero is someone who is capable to keep those around him or her in control even if that person cannot control himself or
When it comes to ruling Locke and Machiavelli has somewhat similar views by having a person in power and if they are not doing what they should for a state then they should be overthrown. Even though Locke says that the ruler is supposed to lookout for the betterment of the state and Machiavelli says that people tend to look-out for themselves. I think that Machiavelli has the truest idea of what actually happens especially in modern society and that Locke’s idea is a better, but is not the truest account of human nature.
Tzu believes there should never be a war. He states “Weapon are the tools of violence; all decent men detest them” (209). He believes there should not be war and if there ever was it is because a country goes “counter to the Tao [which is when] warheads are stockpiled outside the cities” (210). On the other hand, Machiavelli is more military based he advises princes to be forceful “A prince, therefore must not have any other object nor any other thought, nor must he take anything as his profession but war, its institutions, and its discipline; because that is the only profession which befits one who commands . . .” (221). It seems as though Machiavelli believed a prince who did not have a strong army was not a real man nor a real
Machiavelli believes that men respect power, but they will take advantage of kindness. He does not trust man’s intent and views human nature to be corrupt and evil filled with selfish goals. He believes that when given the opportunity one must destroy completely, because if one does not then he will be destroyed. Machiavelli appeal to the facts which are undeniable. He deals with sitiuations as they are and not what people want them to be. His look on human beings is driven from the historical evediance of how huamn beings have treated one another. The end of prserving the state justifies any taking immoral means to reach the end because it is what is required for you to have power and to be able to lead lead. The end justifys the means and
Machiavelli draws many of his arguments from his observation of both history and politics. In comparison to the philosophers,
One of the first major differences between Machiavelli and Lao Tzu’s belief is war... 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,
Even though Machiavelli himself held many harsh beliefs, his principals about liberty, opposed to monarchy, impacted leaders in his time as well as in our time today. Machiavelli paved the way for countries around the world to drift away from absolute monarchies, and start focusing on his favored idea of liberalism, where individuals are protected and equal. Machiavelli’s thoughts in The prince and liberalism both support government over religious power, citizen armies, a government with voting citizens and elected officials rather than a king or a queen, and the ideals of honesty. Some aspects of Machiavelli’s ideologies are seen in the United States
While the word Machiavellian has become part of our lexicon as a term for the ruthless execution of political will glorifying the “ends justify the means” mentality, Machiavelli’s true legacy should be found in his belief that the state was more than a contract as Bacon or John Locke would later explain. Machiavelli was shrewd enough to understand that the state was an entity in and of itself which needed to be protected from all dangers both external and internal. In Machiavelli’s belief, it is the enlightened prince who must act on behalf of his subject’s best interests. As such, a prince should not find himself beholden to the same rules of morality and ethics that govern individuals. To the casual observer this outlook could be described as cynical at best and immoral at worst. But to the student of history and politics it is remarkably prescient. Machiavelli’s ideas would go on to mold political thought well into the modern era.
I believe that Machiavelli advice to the prince is useful to the modern politician and it can be use in current events and by leaders. We could see his ideas used daily all over the world and one of them is having a strong army. Different politicians and president follow similar ideas that Machiavelli talked about such as taking responsibilities of all your duties that are assigned to you, and not just live virtuously. He also mentioned important qualities that a strong leader should possess and should not possess. For example, a strong leader should not develop generosity and should also avoid promising ideas that are impossible to achieve. He also needs to avoid being hated by the people because it is going to make him weak, and he must not show compassion either.