Lao-Tzu And Machiavelli's Opposing Views

To begin, Lao-tzu’s and Machiavelli’s views on the ultimate purpose of government are very different. First of all, Lao-tzu’s idea of the purpose of government is more as a suggestion or a guide. Lao-tzu believes that government should not be a part of people’s personal lives in any way shape or form. He believes in a very simple type of government. He

Serenity and peacefulness are Lao-Tzu’s focal points throughout “Thoughts from the Tao-te Ching.” By stating, “Violence, even well intentioned, / always rebounds on oneself.” he establishes his belief that war is problematic for everyone involved. (60; sec. 30). War disrupts the nature of peace which goes against everything that Lao-Tzu stands for. While having a country where war and violence are obsolete sounds ideal, it is not realistic. Leaders can only control their own people, and even then, they are at the liberty of what their people are willing to do. Lao-Tzu’s form of government only works if leaders from all around the world abide by the same principles and implement peacefulness among their own

Anywhere you go, there will be a community ruled by a leader. The qualities of leaders play a vital role in the success or failure of a society; if these qualities are effective, it allows the country to be successful and the ruler’s to fulfill the country’s needs. However, the absence of effective leadership qualities result in severe effects towards the country. When comparing the thoughts of Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli, it becomes obvious these two authors have different beliefs on how to be an effective leader. Machiavelli was a historian in Italy, a diplomat, a philosopher, a politician, and a writer during the era of the Renaissance. Lao-Tzu, during the 6th century, was an ancient Chinese philosopher. These two authors approach at almost entirely different positions. For this reason, it is a natural progression to collocate the two in an effort to better understand the qualities a leader should possess. To prove their philosophies, Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli have sought to reach a more complete understanding of each other’s thoughts on the subjects of war and weapons, qualities of leaders and the people, and how to govern.

Tao-te Ching (in English pronounced “dow deh jing”) is believed to be written by Lao-tzu (6th century B.C). However, it is not for certain that he wrote the book. Lao-tzu is translated as “Old Master”. He was born in the state of Ch’u in China. It’s been said that he worked in the court of the Chou dynasty. The day that he was leaving the court to start his own life, the keeper of the gate urged him to write his thoughts as a book. Lao-tzu’s work mostly illustrates Taoism –a religion founded by Chang Tao-ling A.D. 150. His main purpose in this piece is practicing peace, simplicity, naturalness, and humility. Lao-tzu believes that people are overloaded with temporal objects in this world. He recommends his readers to let go of everything

He discusses that the prince have military knowledge, love and fear, trustworthiness, and good and bad reputations. He deeply believes in the art of war. "...a prince must not have any objective nor any thought, nor take up any art, other than the art of war and its ordering and discipline; because it is the only art that pertains to him who commands. And it is of such virtue that not only does it maintain those who were born princes, but many times makes men rise to that rank from private station; and conversely one sees that when princes have thought more of delicacies than of arms, they have lost their state." He also writes about whether it is better to be loved or feared, stating that it is best to be feared, but not hated. Love can change in an instant, and it is better to always have control, even if the prince must be feared. Patriotism and dedication to the state was also a very important aspect. In conclusion, Machiavelli strived for power and strength by any means possible. Through violence and fear, the end result would be worth it to him.

Sun Tzu and Machiavelli have similar views on preparation before battle. Both believe that appropriate preparation ultimately causes victory to lean in the favor of those with little reliance on circumstance. Machiavelli stated that “rulers maintain themselves better if they owe little to luck.” Leaders prepared for battle will not falter under the weight of pressure unlike opposition who rely on a specific circumstances for their strategy to be effective. Sun Tzu practically implies that the same exact tactic be used by generals of armies. He says, “Therefore, the victorious military is first victorious and after that does battle. The defeated military first does battle and after that seeks victory.” Sun Tzu’s statement seems to provide a more precise strategy which is clearly tailored more towards a military interested in winning battles rather than a ruler governing a principality. Sun Tzu’s directions are all about

“Weapons are tools of fear. A decent man will avoid them.” Lao-tzu is against military action. The only way he is in favor of military action is in the “direst necessity.” And only in the most

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

Lao-Tzu is not exactly polar opposite of Machiavelli, although he is close. He believes that man in a state of nature is generally good and not greedy. What makes man greedy is overemphasis on material

Lao-Tzu’s stand on war is not what one might expect; he believes that peace has more power than war and that all men with a good set of morals look down upon the men who seek to fight. Along with war being an unnecessary product of compromise, Lao-Tzu view’s weapons as a disgrace as well; this idea is shown on page 209 when he adds, “Weapons are the tools of violence; all decent men detest them.” He later then states, “There is no greater illusion than fear, no greater wrong than preparing to defend yourself, no greater misfortune than having an enemy,” (page 210). Lao-Tzu detests war and sees it as a shame to even take part of the hate that is involved with fighting. On the other hand, Machiavelli suggests that it is fit for a leader to show close to perfect fighting techniques on and off the battlefield. War is shown as a lesson of fortitude for leaders during his time, Machiavelli explains, “Its institution, and its discipline; because that is the only profession which befits one who commands; and it is of such importance,” (page 221). He later discusses, on page 222, how a leader must train in his free time to prepare and become the most powerful fighter of all the men by mentioning, “and in peacetime he must train himself more than in time of war; this can be done in two ways: one by action, the other by the mind.” One can conclude that Machiavelli defines a strong leader through both psychological warfare and hand to hand combat. He also sees war as a learning curve for the men who wish to become a leader; Machiavelli’s understanding off a strong leader

Government is the essential power of a country, which directly influences society because it provides somewhat of a security blank for those who are affected by it. Lao-Tzu’s, “Thoughts from the Tao-te Ching,” along with Niccolo Machiavelli’s, “The Qualities of the Prince,” both discuss multiple characteristics that a leader should possess to be a successful. While their goal is similar, in which they both describe what it takes to become a better leader, their ideas concerning leading are conflicting.

Lao-Tzu's "Thoughts from the Tao-te Ching" and Machiavelli's "The Qualities of a Prince" both have the ultimate goal of making better leaders. The tactics that each writer chooses to present as a guide for the leader are almost opposite of each other. Today's American government would benefit from a combination of the two extreme ideas. Lao-Tzu's laissez-faire attitude towards the economy, as well as his small scale, home defense military is appealing to a liberal person. Machiavelli's attitude towards miserliness and lower taxes, while being always prepared for war, would appeal to a conservative person. The writers are in agreement on some issues, such as taxes, but other ideas,

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

There are varieties of leadership styles. Niccolo Machiavelli and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, are opposites in their characterization of what makes a good leader. One justifies that the “end justifies the means” while the other directs us that “it is wrong to use immoral means to attain moral ends” (King). I agree with the latter of the two believing that the first one burns bridges, while the latter builds them. However, both leadership styles exist today.

Should a leader be feared or loved? Machiavelli goes into depth about how it is better to feared than loved. He states that, ¨Well one person would like to be both; it is difficult for one person to be feared and loved.” By suggesting this, he is saying this is because a ruler that is well-loved is not always well-respected and is at risk of losing control. By instilling fear while at the same time avoiding unnecessary cruelty, the ruler that is able to maintain power and perhaps at the same time still have the respect of his people. In the reading China's Golden Age, both fear and love are used, but in different ways.