Machiavellia And Lau Tzu Analysis

Improved Essays
George Washington states,” Morality is the essential pillar of a civil society” www.free2pray.info/founderquotes.html. America is a nation that was founded on the principles of morals and ethics. This country had undergone many hardships of what is to be considered morally correct or wrong. Our nation has faced the harsh realities of war, economic downfalls, and trusting those who lead the people. There were many tough choices that could only be solved by a strong independent leader and their ideas. If America wishes to continue growing into an ethical and moral society, we must look into the writings of two philosopher’s ideas of what makes a good leader. These philosophers are Machiavellia and Lau Tzu. Each man had their own interpretations of what was the correct way of leading people. There are three issues that are affecting our nation’s sense of morals and ethics. Should a leader be loved or feared, is it …show more content…
Should a leader always be truthful to his people? Machiavelli states, “a wise ruler, cannot and should not keep his word when such an observance of faith would be at a disadvantage” (230). He believes that if a leader were to lie, there would be no consequences since all truth only gives the person in power a disadvantage. It may sound like an unethical idea because this goes against everything a virtuous person does, but there is some truth of what Machiavelli is saying. Leaders deceive their subjects because all men break their promises according to Machiavelli. If America were to have such a leader, the people would no longer be disappointed with the leaders that run the country. Therefore, promises that were made by the ruler could not be broken. All of the leader’s actions would be solely based on what events are happing now. If there were to be a mistake, the person in charge would not receive any negative backlash, because he does not make promises to his

Related Documents

  • Superior Essays

    Aquinas does not believe it is truly right or wrong for the people to kill the ruler if the entire public believes he is unjust to rule. This means the entire public must have the same opinion whether the king should be killed or not. What Machiavelli says does not pertain to the public, but more to the ruler on how to prevent things like that from happening. While he still believes in using the force to earn the peoples respect, Machiavelli recognizes that the leader may also need to undermine the people. He is a firm believer in not presenting anything new to the public, instead, try to reform what is already being used.…

    • 1261 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Creon has no argument against Antigone 's affectionate stance, but he feels that he either has to choose to go through with his word or risk loosing his power and manhood. Of course as we all know Creon chooses his own laws over the divine. This upsets the gods as told by the blind prophet, Tiresias. The elders of the city start to chant that nobody can go against the will of the gods. Tiresias warned Creon that the gods wouldn 't like him leaving Polynices out to rot and as his punishment, his son would die which came to pass.…

    • 1910 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The fundamental basis of government is to be ruled by people and with moral actions and responsibility. When taken out of the equation, immoral actions occur, freedoms are suppressed, and nothing gets done. Howard constantly reminds us that we, the people, created the government: so why have we let it push us out? Human involvement is necessary for success, and each proposition is consistent in that statement. When coming to his conclusion and his closing notes, his argument stays strong with his call to action.…

    • 1274 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    James I Tyranny Analysis

    • 771 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Charles I ruling was very controlling in sense that he believed that whatever he did was justified because he had the divine right to rule. In Kishlansky article, he questions Charles I intelligence, many other critiques have gone far to call him stupid because of his lack of knowledge with the avoidable situations he has gotten himself in. Kishlansky also mentions that Charles has a lack of empathy for his subjects. (43) by Charles being disconnected with everyone, it proves the idea of him being a tyrant, since he cannot sympathies with people he does not have a connection with, whatever happens to them he would not feel the least bit of empathy. He sees everyone who crosses him or disagrees with him as an enemy and that just continues the separation he has with his subjects.…

    • 771 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Hobbes would best undermine my values because in his view, the government’s command is to be obeyed at all times and they can essentially do anything they want. This would be troubling because society would have to obey the governments commands regardless of how bad it is and there would be no supervision of people and their rights, but instead a leader with power that does whatever he wants, which can lead to a tyrannical government. The threat of society being negatively controlled by a tyrannical leader would confiscate the virtues of liberty, the right to life, and the right to property because the government can restrict citizens in any way they desire as well as take property as they see fit. The oppression that would manifest would depreciate the lives of people and the essential virtues of Locke’s political philosophy would be lost in the power of the government. On another note, the individuals discussed above would do worse under Hobbes’s political system because they would all be directed to endure tasks that would serve as a sacrifice, rather than an improvement.…

    • 1396 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Because he believes man becomes disloyal to the state when times are tough, and the ultimate purpose of the Prince is to maintain order within the state, Machiavelli argues a ruler should be feared. If the prince is loved and circumstances warrant, people are more prone to take advantage of the benevolence of their ruler. Ruling with an iron fist, Machiavelli believes, would ensure obedience from the ruled. Moreover, he does also warn of the dangers of using fear in a negative manner. Never in The Prince does Machiavelli advocate using cruelty for no explicit reason, but instead urges rulers to use it in the interests of the state.…

    • 1099 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Many will state that since Creon was a tragic hero, he has flaws. This is true, however he realizes the flaw because everyone he loved was takes away from him, not because he treated everyone in Thebes equally. Others may also argue that The fate was in the hands of the gods. Although everyone is well educated that the gods were in fact fake and non existent, the gods are not the wisest and wouldn't have chosen Creon to be king if they knew he was not worthy or authorized. A last argument opposers may point out is that the prophet says no man is not wrong.…

    • 791 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    Thoreau’s method consist of, “I saw, that, if there was a wall of stone between me and my townsmen, there was a still more difficult one to climb or break through before they could get as free as I was” (Thoreau 9). Thoreau 's experience in not paying taxes, he felt liberated from his conscience. His approach in making a change for just reasons happens at a slower pace, yet effective influencing generations. He mentions, quietly declaring war with the State on his part, because he does not obey the law by not providing to pay his taxes. Thoreau defends what he strongly believes in by not supporting the government.…

    • 1834 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    He believes that without cultural motives such as laws, holiness, and profit, people have a basic human nature to act virtuously. On the contrary Machiavelli believes that humans have little morality and a malevolent nature. He states “for men forget more quickly the death of their father then than the loss of their patrimony.”(Machiavelli 228) this exemplifies his perceived shallowness of the human mind, and their obsession with wealth and possessions, over their emotions. This is exceedingly evident throughout his writings on governing, he implies the vice of the human race citing the need for many laws and regulations to keep the people's perceived malicious intents in check. Machiavelli and Lao-tzu had very different ideas about what it takes to be a successful leader.…

    • 1097 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    This is something he does not question. Often he calls men weak and unable to stand up for what is right, but never does he say that the public cannot detect what is right vs. what is wrong. However Machiavelli sees the public as, "ungrateful, fickle, false, cowardly, and covetous (Machiavelli XVII)." and most importantly easily controlled. The Price reads as a how-to guide on easily manipulating men; Machiavelli believes as a ruler you can rely on the people not speaking out against you as long as you appear to be virtuous.…

    • 792 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays

Related Topics