Throughout the history of the world, there have been countless examples of triumphant and unsuccessful leaders whose ideas and forms of governing a nation, state, or community of people all varied considerably. Niccolo Machiavelli, an Italian diplomat and political philosopher from the late 1400’s, taught that in order to be a good leader, your people must fear you. He also believed that leaders, “must have no other objective, no other thought, nor take up any profession but that of war” (Machiavelli). While Lao Tzu, a 6th century philosopher and the father of Taoism taught that good leaders must, “learn how to follow” their people and trust that they will make the right decision (Tzu). I believe Machiavelli’s idea of ruling with fear is not a good one and that; “simplicity, patience, and compassion” are the greatest values a leader could have. In Niccolo Machiavelli’s book, “The Prince” he writes about power: how to get it and how to keep it. In it, he makes an analogy of two men and says, “It is not reasonable that he who is armed should yield obedience willingly to him who is unarmed” (Machiavelli). Machiavelli makes a good point here; an armed or feared leader would not have to worry about his people stepping out of line because a harsh punishment, such as death, would anticipate them. However, this concept of leadership neglects the fact that the person that holds the most power above others will not inevitably do what is right or necessary for his people. Machiavelli notoriously professed that if great rulers want to keep their power, they must learn how "not to be good". In today’s world, Niccolo Machiavelli’s teachings on how one must lead would not work because the world is not as chaotic as it was in his time. Italy, d... ... middle of paper ... ...to have little to nothing in common but beneath the surface, they share one major characteristic: patience. The Tao teaches that if a leader is, “patient with both friends and enemies, they accord with the way things are“(Tzu). It seems that John F Kennedy took this page straight from Tzu’s book on October 16, 1962; the first day of the Cuban Missile Crisis. JFK received information from U-2 planes flying over Cuba of Soviet soldiers setting up nuclear missiles. It was calculated during that time that if a crisis led either side to fire nuclear weapons, “all humans in the northern hemisphere could perish” (May). For fourteen stressful days, JFK had no other choice but to hold his breath and wait patiently to see what would unravel of this sticky situation. Due to the extreme patience and caution delivered by President John F. Kennedy, the world escaped nuclear war.
This compare and contrast essay will focus on the views of leadership between Mirandolla and Machiavelli. Mirandolla believes that leadership should not be false and that it should follow the rule of reason. He believes that leaders should strive for the heavens and beyond. On the other hand, Machiavelli believed that leadership comes to those who are crafty and forceful. He believed that leaders do not need to be merciful, humane, faithful or religious; they only need to pretend to have all these qualities. Despite both of them being philosophers, they have drastically different views on leadership, partially because of their views on religion are different. Mirandolla was very religious, and Machiavelli was a pragmatist, which means that he was not interested in religion.
Niccolò Machiavelli was a man who lived during the fourteen and fifteen hundreds in Florence, Italy, and spent part of his life imprisoned after the Medici princes returned to power. He believed that he should express his feelings on how a prince should be through writing and became the author of “The Qualities of a Prince.” In his essay, he discusses many points on how a prince should act based on military matters, reputation, giving back to the people, punishment, and keeping promises. When writing his essay, he follows his points with examples to back up his beliefs. In summary, Machiavelli’s “The Qualities of a Prince,” provides us with what actions and behaviors that a prince should have in order to maintain power and respect.
Lao-Tzu desires a leader who confides in his people, to make them feel a part of the government, and to not control them. The logic and moral being: if everything is left to be do what it 's supposed to, everything will fall into place and a leader will not over occupy his or herself with duties that 's not meant for them. Not only that, but Lao-Tzu mentions what it would be like if an area is governed in a specific way, “If a country is governed with tolerance, the people are comfortable and honest. If a country is governed with repression, the people are depressed and crafty (Verse 58, pg. 29).” Lao-Tzu, in comparison to Machiavelli, thinks a compassionate, involving leader befits governing a country. However, in an earlier verse, Lao-Tzu mentions that when the “Master” governs, the best kind of leader is one who hardly exists to the people, the other is one who is loved, and one who is feared, but the worst is one who is despised. Meaning that Machiavelli and Lao-Tzu are on the same spectrum when it comes to the quality of a good
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
What is the attitude of a true leader? We all have different opinions toward the idea of a “true leader”. Some say a true leader must be loved, others say they must be feared. Some say they should be compassionate towards humanity, others say they should be indifferent. One of the famous theories of leadership is proposed in Machiavelli’s The Prince. Tempered through strife and conflict, characters in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar are forced to undertake harsh, Machiavellian stances to augment their authority. For those who command Machiavellian traits, it is nothing more than a visage–an image that does not reveal the manifestation of the failure to implement Machiavelli’s advice on ruling, where their downfall can be traced.
Niccolo Machiavelli lived in Florence, Italy in the 1400’s. The country of Italy was divided into city-states that had their own leaders, but all pledged alliance to their king. In time in which great leaders were needed in order to help the development of a city-state and country, Machiavelli had a theory that man needed a leader to control them. In his book The Prince, he speaks of the perfect leader.
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...
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.
“A prince, therefore, must not…take anything as his profession but war…” these are the words of Nicollo Machiavelli and which he exclaims very clearly in his philosophies, that a good ruler must be great at the art war to succeed. One of the ways M shows his outlook on war, is by explaining how important it is to bear arms at all times and to never be without a weapon, for weapons are the tools of war and if used correctly and intelligently you will prevail over all during times of war. Secondly, M explains that a necessary induced order, unity, and fealty to the leader of a nation by projected and incited fear of that leader or leadership is the only way a leader can be looked can be respected by his own military. Moreover, with the respect of that military, a leader must have a good knowing of his home terrain in order to plan both offensive and defensive actions, and also to know history of great past leaders bouts with other countries, for this knowledge gai...
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 contrary, Machiavelli advocates the necessity for a successful leader, or prince, to take control of his endeavors, and the skills or qualities necessary to maintain power, at any cost. Since these thinkers both make an inquiry to what is essentially the same dilemma of effective leadership, it becomes almost a natural progression to juxtapose the two in an effort to better understand what qualities a prosperous leader must possess. In this sense, when we utilize the rhetorical strategy of compare/contrast as a vehicle to transport us to a more enlightened interpretation of Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli’s conclusions, it becomes apparent that Machiavelli’s effort is much more successful as his practicality serves its purpose much more effectively.
Living in a tumultuous era, filled with political and religious conflicts, warring city-states, and a continent ruled by a government who used the church to control and conquer, an exiled Machiavelli wrote the book The Prince to give politicians a basis on how to rule a nation and as a way to continue to make a statement in Florence’s politics. The book itself was unlike the regular “mirrors for princes”, in a sense that instead of telling the prince how to be morally sound it told him how to be effective as a ruler. Within the book there were three characteristics that were expressed that can be considered of high importance for every prince/ruler. These three were every prince should rather be feared than to be loved, study war and always be ready for it, and that in the case of two states in war always pick a side and never stray away from it. These characteristics were present in a strong and merciless ruler who used the three features above to govern over an entire country. Joseph Stalin might be seen as a mass murder, but his achievements and contributions to Russia proved that by being feared rather than loved, studying war and perfecting it, and his ability to choose his allies in war, would ultimately lead to the prosperity of his nation.
Through his many years of experience with Italian politics Machiavelli wrote “The Prince”; a how-to guide for new rulers. We are given descriptions of what a leader should do to effectively lead his country. A leader should be the only authority determining every aspect of the state and put in effect a policy to serve his best interests. These interests are gaining, maintaining, and expanding his political power. Machiavelli’s idea is that a ruler should use a variety of strategies (virtues) to secure his power. Machiavelli lists five virtues that a ruler should appear to have; being compassionate, trustworthy, generous, honest and religious. A ruler should possess all the qualities considered good by other people.
According to Niccolo Machiavelli “if you have to make a choice, to be feared is much safer than to be loved” (225). Machiavelli was the first philosopher of the Renaissance, and wrote The Prince which argued that leaders must do anything necessary to hold on to power. The main reason it is better to be feared is because men are evil, rotten and will only do things that benefit themselves. Men only think of themselves and it is for this reason fear can control them and keep them loyal to a leader. Since loyalty through love can be easily broken because it involves no punishment, loyalty through fear is the better choice because it involves the “dread of punishment, from which [the subjects] can never escape” (Machiavelli 226). Machiavelli goes on to say that the great leader Hannibal took control of his immense army, because the soldiers saw Hannibal as a fearsome and cruel person, thus, making them loyal to him. Machiavelli in addition gives an example of a leader who chose not to be feared and cruel: “Scipio, an outstanding man not only among those of his own time, but in all recorded history; yet his armies revolted in Spain, for no other reason than his excessive leniency in allowing his soldiers more freedom than military discipline permits”(226). Failure to be cruel and fearsome will cause a leader to lose control of his soldiers, and it will cause the leader’s soldiers to revolt. Hannibal was the better leader; even though he was cruel, he was more merciful in reality than Scipio because he did not allow any disorders to happen.
What is leadership, and how do we attain the best and most effective leaders? These are questions that are as old as civilization itself. Bass (1974) wrote that, “from its infancy, the study of history has been the study of leaders” (as cited in Wren, 1995, p. 50). Since the study of history in the West is commonly held to begin with Herodotus of ancient Athens, it is not surprising that we should examine the historical views of leadership through the eyes of two titans of Greek thought: Plato and Aristotle.
During the time 1469, a child by the name of Niccolo Di Bernardo Del Machiavelli was born. Some may know him as an Italian philosopher, humanist, or an evil minded fellow associated with the corruptness of totalitarian government. In Machiavelli’s home state of Florence, he introduces the modern political theory. Hoping to gain influence with the ruling Medici family, Niccolo wrote a pamphlet called The Prince (Prezzolini). Niccolo lived a nondescript childhood and his main political experience in his youth was watching Savonarola from afar.