Preview

Comparing Machiavelli And Lao-Tzu's Writings

Better Essays
Open Document
Open Document
839 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Comparing Machiavelli And Lao-Tzu's Writings
Martin Martinez
Eng 151-1856
2/19/08

The Contrast between Machiavelli’s writings and Lao-Tzu’s opinion

Lao-Tzu’s writings offered a basis for Taoism, a religion officially founded by Chang Tao-ling in about 150 A.D. However, the Tao-te Ching is an ethical document as much as about good government as it is about moral behavior. Niccolo Machiavelli was an aristocrat who had his ups and downs according the shifts in power in Florence. His writings encourage a prince to secure power by almost any means necessary. Lao-Tzu’s Thoughts from the Tao-te Ching and Niccolo Machiavelli’s The Qualities of the Prince both have main goals of how to mold a better prince. Their views on government and the ways they attain their goals each differ in method. Machiavelli and Lao-Tzu have very different aspects about how a prince should govern his people. Machiavelli dwells over the fact, whether it is better to be loved or feared. He believes that the
…show more content…
In order to gain control over his people he uses fear. ”[M]en are less hesitant about harming someone who makes himself loved then who makes himself feared….” (44) Since man is so hesitant to betray someone who they fear, the prince remains in control of his people. The terror of punishment keeps the people in order, which enables a smooth running government. According to Machiavelli this fear is the only way for a prince to govern his people and avoid harm. Lao-Tzu’s thoughts are completely different from Machiavelli’s. Tzu believes in a smaller government, where the people actual govern themselves. He believes that the people should feel equal to the ruler and that the ruler must place himself below the people. Tzu stresses self control throughout the reading. Unlike Machiavelli he believes it is better to be loved than feared and he states that “if you want to lead the people, / you must learn how to follow them” (Section

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    Summary: The writings of Machiavelli and Lao Tzu indicate that they would disagree most strongly on the concept of how a government should run. Machiavelli believed that in strong government control by a prince who acted more in terms of practicality and maintaining power than through moral principles. Lao Tzu, on the other hand, took a more individualistic, carefree approach, believing that a ruler will be respected and followed if he does not act powerfully and force rules and issues.…

    • 514 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Lao-tzu and Machiavelli are political philosophers writing in two different lands and two different times. Lao-tzu was an ancient Chinese philosopher from 6th century BC, the author of Tao-te Ching, and Machiavelli was an Italian philosopher who lived 2000 years after Lao-tzu's time, 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.…

    • 466 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Even though Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli were both advisors there was still many differences of the two’s views on how a government should be. A leader is a person who leads or commands a group, organization, or a country. It does not matter what state, country, or city someone lives in they are guaranteed to have a leader. Leaders have been around in every era. If considered to be a leader, people wanted to be great and admired for what they had done or were going to do. Both Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli lived in different times and completely different geographical areas, but they lived as advisors. Everybody is their own person and of course they had different views on how a country should be run. Although they had different views, their ultimate goal was to be better leaders. Three main differences between the two’s government views included war, money, and government involvement in the everyday lives of citizens.…

    • 604 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    There are many kinds of leaders in this world that believe that their style of leadership is the best. Machiavelli and Lao Tzu were two people that believed that their style of ruling was the best way to rule. They were both extremely outspoken and they stood by their ways. Both Machiavelli and Lao Tzu were very clear about how they thought a government should be run. Even though they both held strong opinions on how a government should be ran, they could not be any more different. If Machiavelli agreed with one topic, most likely, Lao Tzu would be completely against it. Their beliefs are the exact opposite of each other. Machiavelli thought that a ruler should be very strict while Lao Tzu thought that they should be laid back and let the people live their lives the way they wanted too.…

    • 743 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Lao-Tzu vs. Machiavelli

    • 1382 Words
    • 6 Pages

    Lao-tzu’s view is government should not have optimal power over the people He feels as though the less people know they are being governed, the happier they will be. For example, in the Tao-te Ching Lao-tzu states, “If you want to be a great leader,/ you must learn to follow the Tao./ Stop trying to control./Let go of fixed plans and concepts,/ and the world will govern itself.” (Verse 57)…

    • 1382 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Better Essays

    Lao-Tzu vs Machiavelli

    • 1508 Words
    • 7 Pages

    When utilizing the rhetorical strategy of comparing and contrasting in relationship to literature, a number of pieces of can qualify. In particular, the idea of leadership is arguably one of the most written about topics with regard to comparing and contrasting. Throughout history, it can be argued that the majority of successful societies have been based upon effective divisions of leadership. Accordingly, in their pieces of literature, The Tao-te Ching and The Qualities of the Prince, Lao-tzu and Machiavelli have sought to convey a more complete and concrete understanding of their respective definitions and duties of a ruler (leadership). The theme of political leaders and their intricate relationship with society indeed validate itself within both texts. However, both Lao-tzu and Machiavelli approach this issue from almost entirely opposite positions, though sharing minute similarities. Lao-tzu appears to focus the majority of his attention on letting problems or situations take their course, and consequently good would prevail. On the contrary, Machiavelli advocates the necessity for a successful leader, or prince, to take control of his deeds, and the skills or qualities necessary to maintain power. Since both writers propose a question as to what is in essence the same dilemma, effective leadership, it becomes almost natural literary etiquette to contrast the two in an effort to better understand what qualities a prosperous leader must possess. Despite each author’s contrasting approaches to rhetoric, they agree that a ruler should avoid being hated and despised, but disagree in areas such as government involvement in citizens’ everyday lives.…

    • 1508 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    Lao-Tzu Vs Machiavelli

    • 595 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Both Lao-tzu and Machiavelli seem to have a clear-cut view on how they believe the government should run. In some ways, both men have very similar ideas; more often, though, they couldn't be more opposed. A few similarities brought forth are that people in power must not strive to make everyone happy, nor must they be considered unmerciful and they should avoid being despised. The final view they both share is that they believe if the common people think they are happy, then whomever is in power will not fear for their power. However, it seems for each similarity they have, several oppositions occur in their place. From the way they believe how a leader should govern, especially in times of war, to the way that they feel about simple lies shows us how different Lao-tzu and Machiavelli's opinions really are.…

    • 595 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    “The Master leads by emptying people’s mind and filling their cores, by weakening their ambition and toughening their resolve. He helps people lose everything they know, everything they desire, and creates confusion in those who think that they know.” (Page 19). This passage supports a number of readings. All of them centered on government. The definition of government is the organization, machinery, or agency through which a political unit exercises authority and performs functions and which is usually classified according to the distribution of power within it. Peter Bondanella insinuated, “The twentieth century has contributed a number of important…

    • 1419 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Better Essays

    Lao-Tzu Vs Machiavelli

    • 1059 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Though both pieces express the desired way to govern a people, the “Tao-te Ching” speaks of peace, simplicity, and letting the universe work its will, while “The Qualities of the Prince” emphasizes the necessity for war, and the natural wickedness of men. There are no particular reasons that these two ways of thought should be in harmony, one written in the 6th century, and the other the 16th, but they are similar in that they are highly revered and the aphorisms taken from the text are often quoted and considered wise, brilliant, and true. Both authors seem to believe that they are experts in the ways of human nature, and at their…

    • 1059 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    Lao-Tzu believes in moderation and small government. He states that a leader should stay within his country and govern his people only. He stresses that when the maser governs, the people should hardly be aware that he exists. A leader who is loved is better than one who is feared. The worst is one who is despised (22). Lao-Tzu also believes that war is not necessary when all follow the Tao. He states that "violence, even well intentioned, always rebounds upon itself;" therefore, if you have a neutral position, you will not be harmed (24). He believes that people are inherently good and not greedy. Man's greediness comes from an overemphasis on material things. Machiavelli believes in a strong government. The leader should be strong and feared, but not despised. A hated leader would invite a rebellion that would try to remove him from power. On the other hand, a leader should not be loved. Showing too much compassion will make the people think you are weak, and he would permit disorders to continue. Machiavelli urges the leader to always be personally armed, and preparing for war, even in peace time. The leader…

    • 639 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Machiavelli's philosophy was that "The end justifies the means." This meant that the end result is the most important, and how you got there was of no importance. The Prince was a book of advice to rules on how to found a state and how to stay in power. Machiavelli explained in his book the many different ways to gain power. One way was to acquire land. The four methods that he discusses to acquire more land is: Your own arms and virtue, fortune, others' arms, and inequity. To Machiavelli, the word virtue meant manliness and strength. Machiavelli also advocates the use of evil to achieve any goals. He gives an example of Agathocles of Syracuse as a proof that this works and will enable the prince to rule the land peacefully through fear. "Born of a potter, this one always had an iniquitous life throughout his years: nonetheless, he accomplished his iniquities with such virtue of spirit and of body that, having joined the militia, he rose through its ranks to become praetor of Syracuse. Being established in rank, and having decided to become prince and to keep with violence and without obligation to others what had been conceded him by agreement... ...one morning he convened the people and the senate of Syracuse, as if he had had to deliberate things pertinent to the republic; and at a preordained nod…

    • 1540 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    The Best Paper Evvver

    • 1893 Words
    • 8 Pages

    Machiavelli says this because when a Prince is feared people will respect him and do what he says and they will love him and praise him. It is also possible to be both feared and loved but it is very difficult and only great rulers are able to create the balance.…

    • 1893 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Lead with Example

    • 925 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Stability in a ruler’s morals and ethics are a vital asset to have when ruling a group of people. With similarities shared between the ruler and the common person the ruler will then be able to relate and be more respected amongst the population, as opposed to a ruler who rules with his own self interest at hand. In the piece, The Prince, Niccolò Machiavelli argues the many principles of how a prince should and should not rule. In order to rule successfully he states a prince must possess some of the following characteristics; morality, a strong army, strict rule, common ground with his people and also to be widely respected. Machiavelli laid the ground work for many rulers in the future with his modern view in a time where rulers were primitive and ruled through fear and terror. The Prince and its ideas can even be seen today in our modern day presidents and kings proving that Machiavelli had compelling ideas and arguments for how leaders can obtain and hold a position of power successfully.…

    • 925 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Machiavelli makes the point in his essay that people are ultimately naïve and easily manipulated and that in order to be an exceptional leader, you must be unafraid to do what’s necessary to survive the political wilderness. This is not to say that you should go about your power abusing it because you have the power to, but rather use it in situations when it is necessary. He also says that it is more important to be feared then loved but not too feared because then people may get the idea to over throw you.…

    • 289 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Machiavelli: The Prince

    • 537 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Page 71 What does Machiavelli say it is necessary for a Prince to do to "hold his own?"…

    • 537 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays