Lao Tzu Vs Machiavelli

411 Words2 Pages
The works of Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli bring to light a very interesting question, "is it better to be feared or loved?" Lao-Tzu was an ancient Chinese philosopher that believed in peace, simplicity, and letting the world do its work without intervention until absolutely necessary. Machiavelli, an Italian politician and writer, emphasized the necessity for war, and addressed the wicked nature of men. Both of these individuals have very contrasting points of view in regards to ruling a kingdom. Three of these major differences were about war, human nature, and the use of mercy. After carefully reading the works of Lao-tzu and Machiavelli, it is evident that Machiavelli has the most ideal and relevant advice for today's society. Machiavelli believed that a leader's profession should always pertain to war as well as discipline. To forsake war would mean the loss of the state. Machiavelli argues further that there is no reason for the armed to follow the unarmed, therefore, it is difficult to acquire the willing obedience of the armed. Because of this, if a leader cannot master the art of war or can not understand it, he will…show more content…
That is to say, those who act completely according to their virtues soon meet their end. The virtues that rulers display either brings them praise or blame and because of this, it is necessary for leaders to learn how to commit wrongs, as well as to exercise them when necessary in order to hold their rule. As long as leaders focus on virtues that increase reputation and can keep subjects loyal, they will retain the ability to govern. On the other hand, all men are ungrateful, but as long as you succeed, they will give their children, blood, and life given the circumstances. Lao-Tzu believed that humans aspired to be good, but required the ruler to be just and involved minimally in the people's
Open Document