The Political Philosophies of Machiavelli and Lao-­‐tzu by Madeline Vande Kamp Dr. Dengler KSP 151 November 10, 2014 Vande Kamp 1 Madeline Vande Kamp Dr. Dengler KSP 151 November 10, 2014 Nicclò Machiavelli and Lao-­‐Tzu, although two very different men, both published books that are well known for their political philosophy. In his book, The Prince, Nicclò Machiavelli provides advice to the Florentine princes on how to rule the state with a powerful fist. Lao-­‐Tzu on the other hand, suggests a conservative, natural approach to government in his work, Tao-­‐te Ching. Because Machiavelli and Lao-­‐Tzu came from different time periods and backgrounds, they have contrasting focuses and opinions on how a ruler should govern and on the role of military action. Machiavelli was aristocratic politician who lived from 1469-­‐1527, and who was shaped by the affairs of the world around him (Davies 253). In the Republic of Florence, in modern day Italy, he served in diplomatic and administrative roles in the Florentine government (Davies 253). In 1512, when the Medici princes returned to power, Machiavelli was accused of committing crimes against the government and was subsequently exiled (Jacobus 35). Because he was not allowed to return to his government post, he spent the rest of his life writing at his home outside of Florence (Davies 253). During that time, he wrote The Prince (Jacobus 35). Machiavelli wrote The Prince as a how-­‐to handbook for the Medici family, so that they could increase their power over the Florentine Republic and keep it stable (Phillips 2). During Machiavelli’s day, Italy and the Republic were threatened by forces from Vande Kamp 2 Spain and France who were encroaching on the edges of the Italian city-­‐states (Jacobus 35). He wanted the Medici princes to ensure the stability of the state and believed that the only way to do this was for them to have a strong hold on power (Davies 253). The time period in which Machiavelli grew up and the events that occurred around him served to shape his philosophy on government. Lao-­‐tzu had a very different background in comparison to Machiavelli. Although the authorship of the Tao-­‐te Ching is ascribed to Lao-­‐tzu, not much is known about him as an individual. It is known that he lived during the sixth century B.C. in China, and that his name means “Old Master” (Jacobus 19); although, depending on the location and author he is also referred to as Laozi (Hansen). According to the Taoist tradition, he lived and worked for the Chou dynasty for the majority of his life until he decided to leave the state and continue in a life of thought and reflection. Supposedly, the gatekeeper encouraged him to record his thoughts as he left, and thus, the Tao-­‐te Ching was written (Jacobus 19). Unlike Machiavelli, Lao-­‐tzu grew up under the influence of the eastern hemisphere. Ancient China carried an oral tradition in which philosophers’ ideas would be passed down orally, so it is possible that the Tao-­‐te Ching was not officially written down until the late third century B.C. (Laozi and Mair 120). As a result of this oral tradition, Lao-­‐tzu’s work has a poetic structure and an almost biblical tone. He instructs through condensed phrases that are rich in meaning rather than flat out writing his intended suggestion (Jacobus 21). Although the Tao-­‐te Ching was also written as a handbook for a ruler, it was not written for a particular ruler and thus has a somewhat Vande Kamp 3 “detached” tone (Jacobus 36). The influence of the East, with its oral tradition, impacted the way Lao-­‐tzu saw and reflected on government. Because Machiavelli had a desire to see his state stable and safe from the European armies, the focus of The Prince is on how a ruler can best keep his power. In The Prince, one of the methods for maintaining power that Machiavelli discusses is the state of being armed. He argues that an armed man is better than an unarmed man because an unarmed man will not gain the respect and loyalty of the armed men that follow him. In other words, an armed man will not follow an unarmed man willingly. Rather, a man who is backed with military might has power and thus wins the respect and loyalty of the people (Jacobus 38). Machiavelli discusses other methods for maintaining power in regards to the treatment of the people—whether a ruler should be stingy or generous, how he should keep his word, and how not to be despised or hated. The focus of Machiavelli’s guidelines for government is how a ruler can best maintain his power, and is expressed through his views on the respect of an armed ruler. While Machiavelli’s focus is on power, Lao-­‐tzu’s focus is on keeping the peace. The essence of the Tao-­‐te Ching is to present a philosophy based on peace and “naturalness” (Zhang 474). Throughout the chapters of Lao-­‐tzu’s work, the theme of “naturalness” appears again and again. For example, chapter 29 of the Tao-­‐te Ching states, “The Master sees things as they are, / without trying to control them. / She lets them go their own way, / and resides at the center of the circle” (qtd. in Jacobus 24). Lao-­‐tzu believed that if a ruler did not try to control everything and just allowed events Vande Kamp 4 to happen, those events and the people’s actions would occur according to the natural way of things. He believed that the natural way of things was good, and that by allowing things to happen naturally peace would settle over all (Zhang 478). Lao-­‐tzu’s focus on “naturalness” and peace is in direct contrast with Machiavelli’s focus on retaining power. In addition to exhibiting different focuses in their writing, Machiavelli and Lao-­‐
tzu have diverse beliefs on how a ruler should govern. According to The Prince, Machiavelli believed that it is better for a prince to be feared rather than loved. He explains, “I reply that one should like to be both [loved] and [feared]; but since it is difficult to join them together, it is much safer to be feared than to be loved when one of the two must be lacking” (qtd. in Jacobus 44). Machiavelli argues that if a ruler is only loved by his subjects they will not follow him when the time requires it, such as when he is headed into war. The obligation felt out of love is not as strong as the duty required by fear. Machiavelli believed that people are a weak lot, and thus a ruler must rule by fear if the state is to be kept stable (Jacobus 44). From Machiavelli’s perspective, a ruler must also be stingy rather than generous if he is to maintain power. He explains that a ruler who is generous with his resources at the onset of his rule will eventually use all of his resources and will have to resort to taxing his subjects in order to continue his generosity. If the ruler were to take money from his subjects, they would hate him. Therefore, a ruler must not be generous (Jacobus 41). Machiavelli believed that it was better for a ruler to be economical with his spending; that way, he can defend his state from enemies and complete projects Vande Kamp 5 without putting a burden on his people (Jacobus 41). Even so, the most preferable method, if a ruler is to be generous, is to use the resources of the nations he conquers. In doing so, he neither uses his resources nor those of his people (Jacobus 42). Machiavelli believed that a ruler should be feared and stingy if he is to govern well and retain power over his state. On the other hand, Lao-­‐tzu, in keeping with his focus on peace and the natural way of things, believed in a hands-­‐off from of government. In chapter 29 of the Tao-­‐te Ching he explains that there is time for everything; whether it is being ahead or behind, in motion or at rest, or safe or in danger. The job of the master, or ruler, is to acknowledge these different times as part of the natural way and not try to control them (Jacobus 24). Lao-­‐tzu writes in chapter 17, When the Master governs, the people are hardly aware that he exists. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Master doesn’t talk, he acts. When his work is done, the people say, “Amazing: we did it, all by ourselves!” (qtd. in Jacobus 22) Lao-­‐tzu believed that if the people didn’t realize that they were being ruled, they would behave naturally. He thought that the job of the ruler was to do what needed to be done, but behind the scenes, and with as little interference in the natural way of things as possible. In chapter 58 he notes that the master should act as an example and should Vande Kamp 6 govern with tolerance instead of forcing his will (Jacobus 27-­‐28). According to Lao-­‐tzu, a ruler should govern with a hands-­‐off style while doing only what needs to be done so that things may go about their natural way. Machiavelli and Lao-­‐tzu’s beliefs differ on how a ruler should govern, as do their ideas on the role of military action. Machiavelli believed a ruler should be in constant military training, whether it be training through action or training of the mind. For active training, he suggests that a prince go hunting, learn to deal with physical hardship, and learn the aspects of geography. It is important for a ruler to know the lay of his own land, as well as learn its characteristics so that he can identify similar landscapes in other lands (Jacobus 38). Machiavelli explains that a ruler should also train his mind by studying the tactics of military greats such as Alexander the Great, Caesar, and Cyrus (the Great) of Persia. By doing so he can learn the reasons for their defeats and victories, and can use that knowledge in his own military strategies (Jacobus 39). Machiavelli believed that that military was an essential asset of the prince and that a ruler should always be in mental and active training. Wars and military action, according to Lao-­‐tzu, are a disruption of the peace and the natural way of life (Zhang 473). In the Tao-­‐te Ching, Lao-­‐tzu addresses war in terms of how to prevent confrontations, and what should happen if it is absolutely necessary to engage in war. In chapter 63 he explains how confrontations can be prevented, Act upon the difficult while it is still easy; deal with the large while it is still tiny. The most difficult affairs in the world originate with the easy; Vande Kamp 7 the largest issues originate with the tiny. (qtd. in Zhang 479) Basically, Lao-­‐tzu is saying that a ruler should identify messy situations and deal with them before they become big problems (Heider 125). By using a method of early detection and resolution, a ruler can avoid large issues, some of which may entail using military might. Although Lao-­‐tzu seems to be against military action, he also addresses going to war only if it is absolutely necessary in chapter 31. Weapons are the tools of fear; a decent man will avoid them except in the direst necessity… (qtd. in Jacobus 25) The Tao-­‐te Ching encourages the preservation of life, so rulers should not take their people to war unless it is of the utmost necessity (Zhang 482). Lao-­‐tzu suggests that if they must engage in a military confrontation, they treat it as a somber occasion. During and after, the battle should be viewed with compassion and sorrow because the killing of humanity is not something to rejoice about (Zhang 491-­‐492). Even if the confrontation ends in victory for the ruler, the people should mourn and treat the occasion as a funeral because lives were lost and the natural way was broken (Laozi and Mair 97). Unlike Machiavelli, Lao-­‐tzu treats military action as an option of last resort. He encourages rulers to first prevent it, and if war becomes necessary, to treat it as a somber occasion. Machiavelli and Lao-­‐tzu both present political philosophies that were influenced by their particular cultures. Machiavelli’s, The Prince, serves as a handbook to the Medici princes on how to retain power, so that they can keep the state from being Vande Kamp 8 overtaken by their European foes. He suggests that the princes be feared and stingy rather than loved and generous, and also emphasizes the importance of military might and constant training. In contrast, Lao-­‐tzu writes a guide for a general ruler from an eastern perspective. The focus of the Tao-­‐te Ching is on keeping the peace and the natural way of life. Rather than leading an oppressive government, Lao-­‐tzu’s ruler should use a hands-­‐off style of governing and should treat war as a last resort option. Although both Machiavelli and Lao-­‐tzu have different political philosophies, their ideas were shaped by the cultures they lived in. Vande Kamp 9 Works Cited Davies, Ann. Political Philosophy: Theories, Thinkers, and Concepts. Ed. Seymour Martin. Lipset. Washington, DC: CQ, 2001. Print. Hansen, Chad. "Daoism." Stanford University. Stanford University, 28 June 2007. Web. <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/daoism/>. Heider, John. Tao of Leadership: Lao Tzu's Tao Te Ching Adapted for a New Age. Atlanta: Humanics New Age, 1997. Print. Jacobus, Lee A. A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. 7th ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2006. Print. Laozi, and Victor H. Mair. Tao Te Ching: The Classic Book of Integrity and the Way. New York: Bantam, 1990. Print. Phillips, Tim. Niccolo Machiavelli's The Prince: A 52 Brilliant Ideas Interpretation. Oxford: Infinite Ideas Ltd, 2008. eBook Academic Collection (EBSCOhost). Web. 6 Nov. 2014. Zhang, Ellen Y. "Weapons Are Nothing but Ominous Instruments: the Daodejing's View on War and Peace." Journal of Religious Ethics. 40.3 (2012): 473-­‐502. Print.