Machiavelli, in “The Prince” and Lao-Tzu in “”Thoughts from the Tao-te Ching” have very opposing views. In their writings, they differ on topics such as qualities of a leader, functions of government, and human nature and the world around them. Here I will describe each of their views and compare the differences. Both Machiavelli and Lao-Tzu are philosophers writing in regard to Government, giving advice in ways that they feel people should be governed. Although they both composed their writings long ago, some of the advice given can still be put to good use in our modern world today.
Machiavelli and Lao-Tzu are both very intelligent men, and have very clear perspectives on the topics they write about. On the topic of “Qualities of a leader”, Machiavelli has such strong opinions as to how a ruler should carry himself. He writes about whether it is best to be loved or feared, ultimately coming to a conclusion that a leader must be feared in order to govern his people. In his opinion, a leader who is loved is not doing his job. Machiavelli is almost demanding and has a strong need to control. He advises to be a stern leader, obtaining and maintaining power. He seems very power hungry.
He discusses trustworthiness, good and bad reputations, and being knowledgeable in history and military. He believes that a leader needs to be perceived and strong and powerful. Machiavelli takes credit for all good in the government. To Machiavelli it is important to not appear weak to others, especially the people. He does not trust his people, and his role is a dictator. Lao-Tzu’s opinion on the qualities of a leader is very different than that of Machiavelli’s. His idea of a leader is compassionate, modest and moral. He believes that a leader should be loved by his people.
It’s important to him to be content and confident, stating, “Because he believes in himself, he doesn’t try to convince others. Because he is content with himself, he doesn’t need other’s approval. Because he accepts himself, the whole world accepts him” (LaoTzu Page 27). Lao Tzu doesn’t need to put fear onto his people or to feel powerful. He isn’t controlling in the ways that Machiavelli is. He also gives credit to his people for the good in the world, instead of taking the credit himself. Lao-Tzu trusts his people, saying “If you don’t trust the people, you make them untrustworthy. (pg25)
Lao-Tzu has a high respect for the people which I’m sure allows them to have a higher respect for him as a leader. Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli also differ on the functions of Government, particularly war & military. Both philosophers talk a lot about how the government should be run, and what a leader needs to do to make sure it is being run correctly. Both Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli have a lot to say about war, and weapon control, and their opinions on those topics are possibly the most opposing out of all the topics. In “The Prince”, Machiavelli believes strongly in the Government and how it controls the people.
In his writings, he states, “Men are ungrateful, fickle, simulators, deceivers, avoiders of danger, greedy for gain…” (Machiavelli page 46) He doesn’t trust his people the way Lao Tzu does. Machiavelli is quick to action, and is always ready for war. “Never in peaceful times must he be idle”. (pg 46) He says in his writings that the leader should always be ready for a war. He does not shy away from war at all. “In peace time he must train himself more than in time of war”. (pg 40) Machiavelli also firmly believes in the use of weapons. His writings are clear in how he feels about military action.
He is forceful in acting in terms of military. Lao-Tzu’s view regarding Government and war/military is more ideal. He describes his enemies as human beings, so it is clear that he has a better understanding of compassion than Machiavelli does on war. Lao Tzu Machiavelli governs, while Lao-Tzu sits back and allows his people a chance to govern themselves. Lao-Tzu’s method is to be non-controlling, versus Machiavelli who maintains firm control over his people. Lao-Tzu states, “When the government is too intrusive, people lose their spirit. ”(pg 32) He is slow to action and believes in exhausting all options before starting war.
Machiavelli and Lao-Tzu also view the topic of human nature differently. The qualities they obtain as leaders speak volumes in regard to how they view human nature and the world around them. Although both philosophers feel strongly in their views, Lao-Tzu’s perspective is again more ideal in my opinion. Machiavelli doesn’t have much to say on human nature. In his writings, he actually felt that morality got in the way of governing. He questioned his people’s trustfulness, and their loyalties. He describes the people as being self centered and doesn’t have a very positive view of them.
Lao-Tzu is very clear in his belief that you cannot change the world. Too much change would ruin the world as he states, “The world is sacred. It can’t be improved. If you tamper with it, you’ll ruin it”. (pg 26) It can be interpreted that Lao-Tzu has a great deal of respect for the world around him. He knows the world doesn’t revolve around him and appreciates that there is more to the world than just him or his government.
In closing, Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli are incredibly different personalities who believe greatly different things regarding government and how to rule. It is true that they are equally smart philosophers. But in this modern day I can’t say that either of their opinions and perspectives would be able to successfully govern today’s world.
Works Cited
- Lao-Tzu “Thoughts from the Tao-te Ching” A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A Jacobus. Trans. Steven Mitchell. 7th Ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martins, 2006. pp 22-31
- Machiavelli “The Prince”. A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A Jacobus. Trans. Steven Mitchell. 7th Ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martins, 2006. Pp 40-54
