Lao-tzu’s “Thoughts from the Tao’te Ching” spoke mostly about how a
Master should lead, or better yet, not lead, his people. Lao-tzu stresses the importance
of several ideas. One of them is that government should play a small to
non-existent role in society. He believes that humans are peace loving
creatures that work best under no restrictions. If you try to tell people to do
something, if it is something good, then those people will go astray. To do
this, Lao-tzu says that a good leader must rely on the Tao: in other words, go
with the flow. Do not try to control the situation; just let things happen
naturally and everything will turn out alright. Another idea that Lao-tzu
mentions often is that of non-violence. He says that nothing good comes from violence.
Violence only erupts in fear, so a strong leader must rely on peace and hope,
rather than war, to resolve conflicts.
Machiavelli’s “The Qualities of the
Prince” was a completely different read. He had many different points to make
as to what qualifies a good leader. He says a prince, or a successful ruler,
should be a military man who is always ready for war. He also lists other
qualities a prince should have, such as knowledge of history, charisma, power,
reputation, etc. Overall, a prince should be someone who is thought of as very
charming and good, while they should always be ready to make difficult choices
that may seem evil. This embodies Machiavelli’s most famous idea, “the ends
justify the means.”
After reading these two works, I
was not sure which one I agreed with more. Even though Lao-tzu paints humanity
in a positive light, I am not sure that the simple mindset of a Taoist leader
would actually be successful, especially in this day and age. On the other
hand, Machiavelli’s prince seemed like a two-headed snake that would thrive in
the modern world of government conspiracies, mass media conglomerates, and
multi-billion corporations. However, there seems to be little moral or ethical
guidance in this prince. All actions are taken out of necessity to stay in
power. Even though it may seem like they are acting for the good of the people,
the prince is actually acting just so they stay “happy” and won’t overthrow
him. The people that he rules over aren’t actually free or truly happy. As
interesting and pondering as both leaders were, neither the Master nor the
Prince seemed to fulfill my requirements as a righteous and successful leader.
No comments:
Post a Comment