Comparing Machiavelli And Lao-Tzu

479 Words2 Pages
A leader is someone who leads a group or organization. Since the initial existence of humans, there has always been a necessity for a leader. Through each era of time there have been educators that have suggested what it takes to be a good leader. Among these educators, Machiavelli suggested the methods of becoming a powerful prince based on the histories of Kings. Whereas, Lao-Tzu, based being a good leader around the Tao. The three major differences among these two were the approach on war, fortune and mercy. Machiavelli and Lao-Tzu had different approaches toward war. Machiavelli believed that war should be a profession of a prince. He states that being disarmed makes you despised and that a prince should focus more on arms than personal luxuries. On the other hand Lao-Tzu, said “Violence, even well intentioned, always rebounds upon oneself.” Lao-Tzu believes that if a person does not harm others, they will not harm the person as well. Machiavelli and Lao-Tzu also both had…show more content…
They both had different views of how a government should use their money. Machiavelli believed that being generous would result in running out of money, he suggested only using a leader’s fortune when it comes to preparing for war and avoiding hatred. Lao-Tzu’s approach is quite different. He believed in using the money to benefit the people and not on preparing for war. The last major difference of these two leaders was mercy. Machiavelli believed that a leader may become cruel if needed be. He thought that excessive mercy would cause the people to see the leader as vulnerable or someone that can be persuaded easily. Showing too much mercy would cause disorder in the community, in Machiavelli’s eyes. In contrast, Lao-Tzu didn’t believe in a leader being cruel to the people. He states that “best is a leader who is loved”, his approach to mercy was that if you show little or none the people will become more

More about Comparing Machiavelli And Lao-Tzu

Open Document