This is seen as Lau-Tzu describes weapons by stating that they are “… the tools of violence; all decent men detest them,” (Tao 31) while Machiavelli believes, “A prince, therefore, must not have any other obect nor any other thought, nor must he take anything as his profession but war, its institutions, and its discipline” (Prince 1). The tendency to push the extremes for the good of the people and the leader is the one main thing Machiavelli and Lao-Tzu have in common. Although Lao-Tzu does provide the reader with many new ways to deal with situations, it does not give any form of structure when used as a governing method. In the Tao-te Ching, Lao-Tzu writes about the way “The Master” is to get things achieved.
Hobbes named this condition as ‘war’ which also meant that every man is enemy to every man. Hobbes exposed that man in the state of nature lived with an authoritarian logic of fear and man has always been on the defensive side to protect himself and his position in the society. Hobbes said that man has always wanted to escape from the state of nature and war by following the path towards safety which allocates man to soften feelings of fear. A social contract is an agreement where people gave up their evil state and entered an organized society, which was controlled by the powerful government to preserve safety. Locke viewed human as innately good.
57). If leaders of government imposed regulations on the people, he believed this would hamper society’s growth and the people would not maintain the highest level of happiness. This demonstrates a good leader should empower the people to become more independent and to instill trust in the people to make the right choice. Machiavelli, a totalitarian thinker, believed that a leader should maintain a dictatorship rule with complete power by any means necessary without regard to the people’s expectations. He states, “Hence it is necessary for a prince who wishes to maintain his position to learn how not to be good, and to use this knowledge or not to use it according to necessity” (38, ver.
Machiavelli has strongly persuasive arguments on leadership since he apprehends in his famous book ‘The Prince’ in chapter 17 the human nature very accurately. He reveals that how crucial it is for a prince being aware of the dangers within the city in order to achieve dominance in the state. He offers a possible threat to the prince as people’s in sincerity. Since human beings are inherently self-seeker and ungrateful, they may easily let down the prince in case of a dangerous situation. (Machiavelli 71) Therefore, when it comes to people’s benefits, the rupture of relations between the prince and his people may be broken.
In a natural world devoid of all agreements and cooperation, every moment would be a constant conflict; man will seek to destroy each other for their own gains as there will not be a drawing of a generalized rule of moral or law. It is evident that the common goal of man is in their best interest. Moreover, man’s struggle is not only localized solely on his interest, but rather a broader scope ranging from disputes over natural property rights to war on righteousness, freedom, etc. Men have arisen in society throughout time to gauge and devise plans on conquering adversaries. These men are philosophers, theorists, thinkers like Thomas Hobbes and Sun Tzu, who cultivated the foundation of contemporary society.
These Suras can create very vivid mental images which might have fueled the no mercy fighting against the non-Muslims. There are several passages which seem to imply that it is their religious duty to God to fight and kill for Him. “…You shall not kill-for that is forbidden by God-except for a just cause.” The first passage is saying that the Muslims should not kill unless they are fighting for the Islamic faith or to claim that Allah is the one and only God. “Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it. But you may hate a thing although it is good for you, and love a thing although it is bad for you.” It is constantly said that the non-Muslims, mainly Christians, will try to prevent you from practicing Islam.
Socrates believed that people should evaluate their lives and become ethically responsible. He often considered people should not seek money or power but to become morale correct in society. One of Machiavelli’s famous quote: “It is better to be feared than loved.” He believed that leaders should do anything necessary to gain and maintain power. How can two people with opposite moral have the same ethical beliefs? Socrates and Machiavelli were both humanist philosophers.
If everyone begins to choose loyalty over justice, our society will turn into complete chaos with people breaking the law left right and centre. We do not want our culture turning into rubble, due to this conflicting decision people have to make about whether to choose loyalty or justice. It is a straight forward answer. Justice is far more important than loyalty if we wish to maintain a safe and secure society. In the novel ‘Montana 1948’ we see that Wesley Hayden is forced to choose between family loyalty and justice.
Leaders are risk-takers who are willing to give for those they represent without expecting anything but support in return. And finally, real leaders are leaders who are regarded as models, arousing inspiration and enthusiasm from those who follow them just for being the leaders they are. Both Niccolo Machiavelli and Martin Luther King had their own views, principles and opinions when it came to leadership styles. The question is, however, who had the better blueprint. Martin Luther King and Niccolo Machiavelli had opposing feelings about the extent to which a conscience should have a role in the decision-making process of a leader.
Thomas Hobbs -view on human nature -what kind of state should we have (government) - views on freedoms and liberties View on human nature Materialist view on the world Hobbes assumes that, without strong, centralised authority human beings will perpetually be at war with each other where “every man is Enemy to every man.” " The natural state of man's life is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short". The only reason we form a society (the "social contract") and agree not to harm the other person is to protect ourselves from being harmed by other people. Without government, Hobbes says, life would be "solitary, nasty, brutish, and short." From this, it follows that we are not essentially ethical or "good" people. For Hobbes, ethics is only something that comes with politics, and politics is rooted in selfishness and the desire for self-preservation.