Machiavelli and Lao Tzu were two very intelligent people who
contributed their ideas of how a leader should rule. They were both polar
opposites with their views. Machiavelli said that it is better to rule through
fear than love, that the ends justify the means, that you should have a strong
military and that a leader has no requirement to be trustworthy. Whereas Lao
Tzu said that a ruler should put trust in the people, let world problems play
out, minimize government control and let go of desires, wealth and power.
Machiavelli's views are more realistic and applicable in contemporary society
whereas Lao Tzu's are more suited for a utopian society because of the nature
of the human race and the way the world is structured today.
Easton,
ReplyDeleteYou do a good job of summarizing the viewpoints of Machiavelli and Lao Tzu, but let's contextualize them a bit more. Maybe what you say about the nature of the human race and the way the world is structured should be where this essay begins. What specifically about the nature of the human race and the way the world is structured makes Lao Tzu impractical? Human greed and lust? Globalization? The rise of capitalism? Perhaps introduce more specifically whatever is inherent in human nature and the world order that makes Lao Tzu impractical at the very beginning of your paper and briefly define it.
As far as the summary of Lao Tzu and Machiavelli, what you've got is fine, though maybe a keystone quote from the texts to illustrate their views might help.
Your thesis statement itself seems mostly fine, though again, the terms "nature of the human race" and "the way the world is structured today" need to be fleshed out more in the introduction.