Applying Confucian principles to the Machiavelli’s prince is rather a challenging task. Based on the week’s reading assignment, the one real similarity that I saw was that both men were trying have an effective state. Confucius is definitely an optimist and trying to see the good in people and thinks that thought positive reinforcement a leader can set the right example and inspire people to follow him. Machiavelli on the other hand seems to be more of a realist (or pessimist, depending on perspective) and feels that people can be ruled with a healthy balance of fear and respect. According to Confucius, to be in state of Equilibrium is the balance between pleasure, anger, sorrow, and joy (303). The balance of these attributes is the baseline will enable a healthy existence and a healthy state. From there he continues to build on the foundation and focuses on perfection, an absolute that would be challenging to find any person. Unlike the royals of the western world, Confucius said “The way of the superior man may be found, in its simple elements, in the intercourse of common men and women; but in its utmost reaches, it shines brightly through Heaven and earth (303). Assuming that the Superior man is the leader, or …show more content…
Machiavelli states “Nevertheless a prince ought to inspire fear in such a way that, if he does not win love, he avoids hatred; because he can endure very well being feared whilst he is not hated, which will always be as long as he abstains from the property of his citizens and subjects and from their women. (837). There is no pampering from the Prince, but yet his punishments and rewards are fair based on the actions of an individual. If Machiavelli’s Prince adopted Confucius’ teachings, he would be set up for failure as most would’ve seen those characteristics as weakness, thus leading to a weaker