You have just read the following English passage from The Prince (Machiavelli) and Mencius A417： “And you have to understand this, that a prince, especially a new one, cannot observe all those things for which men are esteemed, being often forced, in order to maintain the state, to act contrary to fidelity, friendship, humanity, and religion. Therefore it is necessary for him to have a mind ready to turn itself accordingly as the winds and variations of fortune force it, yet, as I have said above, not to diverge from the good if he can avoid doing so, but, if compelled, then to know how to set about it.”
Task
Use only the three comparison headings below, write a brief analysis (1 sentence per heading) that explains how the two thinkers differ on each point.
Core value – What is the central value each author makes about how a ruler (or moral agent) should act?
Means & Ends – What is the relationship between means and ends in each case?
Moral Hierarchy – How does each author rank the relationship between virtue, propriety, pragmatism, and higher principles (e.g., the “Way,” the state’s survival)?
Machiavelli centers on state survival as the ruler’s paramount value, while Mencius prioritizes benevolence (ren) as the moral core guiding all the ruler’s actions.
Means & Ends
Machiavelli argues ends (state preservation) justify morally questionable means, whereas Mencius insists virtuous means are inherent to just ends (governing for the people’s welfare).
Moral Hierarchy
Machiavelli ranks pragmatism and state survival above virtue/religion, while Mencius places higher principles (the Way) and virtue above pragmatism, viewing propriety as integral to moral rule.
Machiavelli centers on state survival (allowing rulers to set aside virtues if needed), while Mencius prioritizes benevolence (ren) (requiring rulers to act virtuously as the basis of governance).
2. Means & Ends
Machiavelli holds that state-maintaining ends justify morally flexible means; Mencius argues virtuous means must align with ethical ends (unrighteous methods invalidate a ruler’s authority).
3. Moral Hierarchy
Machiavelli ranks state survival above traditional virtues (fidelity, humanity), whereas Mencius places benevolence and the “Way (Dao)” as supreme (pragmatism is only valid when rooted in virtue).
Confucius centers on benevolence (ren) and conformity to ritual (li) as the ruler’s moral anchor, while Machiavelli prioritizes the state’s stability and survival over personal virtue as the ruler’s core duty.
Means & Ends
Confucius insists that moral means (e.g., virtuous conduct) are inseparable from just ends, whereas Machiavelli argues that desirable ends (state security) justify morally questionable means (e.g., deception, cruelty).
Moral Hierarchy
Confucius ranks virtue and propriety above pragmatism, with both aligned to the “Way”; Machiavelli elevates pragmatism and state survival over virtue and propriety as the highest practical principles.
Mencius pursued people's well-being and the Mandate of Heaven through "benevolent governance"; Machiavelli sought to maintain ruling power through pragmatism.
Machiavelli centers on state survival (a prince may set aside virtues), while Mencius prioritizes benevolence (ren) as the non-negotiable core for a ruler.
2. Means & Ends
Machiavelli argues means (virtues) may be sacrificed to achieve the end (state maintenance); Mencius holds that right means (virtue) must align with the end (governing well).
3. Moral Hierarchy
Machiavelli ranks state survival above virtues/pragmatism; Mencius places benevolence (the Way) as the highest, with propriety/virtue preceding pragmatism.
Mencius ties expediency to moral “ren/yi” (means & ends follow virtue; morality is supreme). Machiavelli/Legalism prioritize power/effectiveness—means serve outcomes directly, with order/power as top moral (or amoral) guide.
Machiavelli centers on state survival, allowing moral compromise; Mencius prioritizes benevolence and moral governance as the ruler’s core duty.
2. Means & Ends
Machiavelli accepts amoral means if they serve state survival; Mencius insists means must align with moral virtue, with ends and means unified in goodness.
3. Moral Hierarchy
Machiavelli ranks pragmatism and state survival above virtue/propriety; Mencius places virtue (ren, yi) and moral principles (“the Way”) at the top, with pragmatism subordinate to them.
1. Core value: Machiavelli centers on a ruler’s prioritization of state maintenance over consistent moral virtue, while Mencius emphasizes a moral agent’s unwavering commitment to benevolence as the core of right action.
2. Means & Ends: Machiavelli argues that morally questionable means are justified if they serve the end of state survival, whereas Mencius insists that virtuous means are inherent to and inseparable from moral ends.
3. Moral Hierarchy: Machiavelli ranks pragmatism and state survival above virtue, friendship, and religion, while Mencius places virtue (renyi) and the Way at the top, with propriety and pragmatism subordinate to these higher moral principles.
Mencius centers on benevolence as the inviolable core for rulers to act morally, while Machiavelli prioritizes the state’s survival as the paramount value guiding a prince’s conduct.
Mencius insists means must align with morality to legitimize ends, whereas Machiavelli argues ends (state preservation) justify morally questionable means when compelled
Mencius ranks virtue and the "Way" above pragmatism, while Machiavelli places state survival (pragmatism) at the top, with virtue and propriety subordinate to it.
Core Value: Machiavelli’s central value is the preservation of the state, even if it requires the ruler to act immorally, while Mencius centers on the ruler’s cultivation of benevolence (ren) as the foundation of good governance.
Means & Ends: Machiavelli subordinates moral means to the end of state survival, allowing unethical actions when necessary; Mencius insists that moral means (virtuous conduct) are inseparable from the end of just rule, as virtue itself secures the state.
Moral Hierarchy: Machiavelli ranks pragmatism and state survival above virtue, propriety, and religion; Mencius places virtue (benevolence, righteousness) and adherence to the “Way” at the top, with propriety and pragmatism serving these higher principles.
Mencius's thought has relatively little room for contingency. He insists on unwavering adherence to moral principles regardless of the situation. Machiavelli, on the other hand, advocates a high degree of contingency. A prince should change his approach flexibly according to the changing circumstances to safeguard the state, even if it means abandoning common moral norms. In essence, Mencius is rigid in moral terms, while Machiavelli is highly adaptable in political strategies.
Machiavelli's central value is a ruler's effective preservation of the state, while Confucius's is the ruler's moral virtue and benevolent conduct.
Means & Ends:
For Machiavelli, morally questionable means are justified by the end of securing power, whereas for Confucius, moral means are inseparable from and necessary for achieving righteous ends.
Moral Hierarchy:
Machiavelli subordinates virtue and propriety to the pragmatic needs of the state, while Confucius places virtue and adherence to the Way as the supreme principles to which pragmatism must conform.
Mencius’s view in A417 and Machiavelli’s in The Prince present contrasting theories of governance. Mencius, extending Confucian ideals, asserts that human nature is inherently good and that a ruler’s legitimacy stems from benevolent governance (ren zheng) and the people’s welfare. He argues that a leader who cultivates virtue will naturally command allegiance, framing morality as the foundation of power.In stark contrast, Machiavelli, writing during Renaissance political turmoil, separates ethics from statecraft. He advises the Prince that it is safer to be feared than loved if one cannot be both, and that the appearance of virtue often matters more than its reality. For him, effective rule depends on pragmatic strength and the shrewd management of power.Ultimately, Mencius grounds authority in moral cultivation, while Machiavelli bases it on pragmatic control, highlighting a fundamental divergence between Eastern virtuous leadership and Western realpolitik.
Core Ideology: Mencius advocated benevolent governance (based on inherent human goodness and the Mandate of Heaven); Machiavelli promoted pragmatic power politics (ends justify immoral means to secure the state).Ruler-Subject Bond: Mencius stressed mutual obligation (people as the state’s foundation); Machiavelli viewed it as transactional (control via fear/favor, avoid hatred).Purpose: Mencius sought moral order to end warfare; Machiavelli advised realism to stabilize fragmented territories.
1. Core value：Machiavelli’s core value for rulers is state survival (even if it requires abandoning moral norms), while Mencius centers on the ruler’s adherence to benevolence (ren) as the foundational virtue for governing.
2. Means & Ends：For Machiavelli, morally questionable means are justified if they serve the end of state maintenance; for Mencius, the means (upholding virtue) must align with the end (governing humanely to secure the people’s support).
3. Moral Hierarchy：Machiavelli ranks state survival above virtue/piety, while Mencius places the “Way (Dao)” and benevolent virtue above pragmatic expediency in a ruler’s priorities.
Machiavelli's ruler should prioritize the state's security and power, while Confucius's moral agent should cultivate and demonstrate virtuous character.
Means & Ends
For Machiavelli, effective ends justify any means, whereas for Confucius, moral means are inseparable from righteous ends.
Moral Hierarchy
Machiavelli ranks pragmatism and state survival above traditional virtue, while Confucius places adherence to the Way and virtue above all else, with propriety as its essential expression.
Machiavelli advocates that a ruler must sometimes act against virtue—fidelity, mercy, or religion—to maintain power, adapting flexibly to circumstances while preferring good only when possible. Mencius, by contrast, argues that true rulership is rooted in benevolence and moral virtue, asserting that a king who governs with humanity wins heaven’s mandate and people’s loyalty. Their views reflect a fundamental divergence: Machiavelli prioritizes pragmatic statecraft, while Mencius upholds righteousness as indispensable to legitimate rule.
Machiavelli's ruler primarily values the state's survival and must sometimes act against morality to maintain power, whereas Mencius's ruler centers on innate moral virtue as the foundation of governance. On means and ends, Machiavelli justifies immoral means if they secure political ends, but Mencius insists that virtuous means are essential to achieve any legitimate end. In moral hierarchy, Machiavelli prioritizes pragmatism and state interests over traditional virtue, while Mencius elevates moral virtue as the supreme principle that defines proper rule.
1. Core value: Machiavelli centers on state survival as the ruler’s primary duty, while Mencius prioritizes benevolence as the non-negotiable core of a ruler’s conduct.
2. Means，Ends : Machiavelli holds that ends justify morally questionable means, whereas Mencius insists that virtuous means are inherent to just ends .
3. Moral Hierarchy: Machiavelli ranks pragmatism and state survival above virtue/religion, while Mencius places the "Way" and virtue above pragmatism, viewing propriety as integral to legitimate rule.
1. Core value: Mencius emphasizes a ruler should act with benevolence and righteousness as fundamental values, while Machiavelli argues a prince should prioritize state maintenance, even if it requires unethical actions.
2. Means & Ends: Mencius believes the means (virtuous actions) justify the ends (a just society), whereas Machiavelli contends the ends (state survival) justify any necessary means, including deceit.
3. Moral Hierarchy: Mencius ranks virtue and propriety above state survival, but Machiavelli places the state's survival and power above traditional moral principles like virtue and pragmatism.
Mencius centers on benevolence (ren): a ruler must act with moral virtue to secure the people’s support; Machiavelli prioritizes state survival: a prince may set aside morality to maintain power.
2. Means & Ends
For Mencius, moral means are inseparable from just ends (virtue ensures stable rule); for Machiavelli, ends (state stability) justify flexible means (morality is optional if necessary).
3. Moral Hierarchy
Mencius ranks virtue and the “Way” above pragmatism; Machiavelli places state survival (pragmatism) above traditional virtue/propriety.
Core value: Machiavelli’s central value is the ruler’s preservation of the state, while Mencius emphasizes the ruler’s benevolence (ren) and care for the people.
Means & Ends: Machiavelli holds that the end (state survival) justifies morally questionable means, whereas Mencius argues that only moral means (e.g., benevolent governance) can achieve just ends (stable rule and people’s well-being).
Moral Hierarchy: Machiavelli subordinates virtue and propriety to pragmatism and state survival, while Mencius ranks virtue (ren) and adherence to the “Way” above pragmatism, viewing them as the foundation of legitimate rule.
Core value – Machiavelli centers on the ruler's pragmatic necessity to ensure state survival, even at the expense of moral virtues, while Mencius posits that the ruler's core value must be benevolence and moral integrity to cultivate a harmonious society.
Means & Ends – Machiavelli argues that the end of maintaining power justifies any means, including deceit or cruelty, whereas Mencius insists that moral means, such as righteous conduct, are essential to achieving legitimate and stable ends.
Moral Hierarchy – Machiavelli elevates state security and pragmatism above traditional virtue or higher principles, while Mencius subordinates pragmatism to inherent virtue and the higher "Way," ensuring moral principles guide all actions.
1. Core value – Machiavelli emphasizes that a prince should prioritize the maintenance of the state, even acting contrary to traditional virtues when necessary, while Mencius centers on the ruler’s cultivation of benevolence (ren) and adherence to moral principles to govern virtuously.
2. Means & Ends – For Machiavelli, the end of state survival justifies employing morally questionable means if needed, whereas Mencius holds that moral means (upholding righteousness and benevolence) are integral to achieving the end of a harmonious and just society.
3. Moral Hierarchy – Machiavelli ranks pragmatism and the state’s survival above traditional virtues like fidelity and humanity, while Mencius places virtue (especially benevolence) and adherence to the “Way” (Dao) at the top, viewing propriety and moral principles as foundational to good governance.
For core value, Machiavelli prioritizes state survival while Mencius centers on benevolence (ren). For means & ends, Machiavelli justifies immoral means for state survival while Mencius ties means strictly to moral virtue. For moral hierarchy, Machiavelli ranks pragmatism above virtue while Mencius elevates the Way/virtue over pragmatism.
Machiavelli centers on state survival as the ruler’s core value, while Mencius prioritizes benevolence (ren) as the moral agent’s foundational guiding principle.
Means & Ends
Machiavelli argues ends (state survival) justify morally questionable means, whereas Mencius insists virtuous means are inseparable from just ends (upholding the Way).
Moral Hierarchy
Machiavelli ranks pragmatism and state survival above virtue/religion, while Mencius places higher principles (the Way) and virtue above pragmatism or mere propriety.
Mencius A417 emphasizes rulers should govern with benevolence (ren), upholding moral virtues. Machiavelli, however, claims a prince may set aside fidelity/morality to maintain the state, prioritizing statecraft over ethics
您确定给 “
